Continuous Adductor Canal Blocks Are Superior to Continuous Femoral Nerve Blocks in Promoting Early Ambulation After TKA
Background Femoral continuous peripheral nerve blocks (CPNBs) provide effective analgesia after TKA but have been associated with quadriceps weakness and delayed ambulation. A promising alternative is adductor canal CPNB that delivers a primarily sensory blockade; however, the differential effects o...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical orthopaedics and related research 2014-05, Vol.472 (5), p.1377-1383 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background
Femoral continuous peripheral nerve blocks (CPNBs) provide effective analgesia after TKA but have been associated with quadriceps weakness and delayed ambulation. A promising alternative is adductor canal CPNB that delivers a primarily sensory blockade; however, the differential effects of these two techniques on functional outcomes after TKA are not well established.
Questions/purposes
We determined whether, after TKA, patients with adductor canal CPNB versus patients with femoral CPNB demonstrated (1) greater total ambulation distance on Postoperative Day (POD) 1 and 2 and (2) decreased daily opioid consumption, pain scores, and hospital length of stay.
Methods
Between October 2011 and October 2012, 180 patients underwent primary TKA at our practice site, of whom 93% (n = 168) had CPNBs. In this sequential series, the first 102 patients had femoral CPNBs, and the next 66 had adductor canal CPNBs. The change resulted from a modification to our clinical pathway, which involved only a change to the block. An evaluator not involved in the patients’ care reviewed their medical records to record the parameters noted above.
Results
Ambulation distances were higher in the adductor canal group than in the femoral group on POD 1 (median [10
th
–90
th
percentiles]: 37 m [0–90 m] versus 6 m [0–51 m]; p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0009-921X 1528-1132 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s11999-013-3197-y |