Cargando…

Femoral Nerve Blockade versus Adductor Canal Nerve Blockade with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES: Post-operative pain control is critical to successful outcomes following outpatient anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Femoral nerve blockade (FNB) has traditionally been employed to provide analgesia for ACLR since its inception in the early 1990’s. Recent studies, however...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Griffin, Joshua, Bailey, Lane Brooks, Harner, Christopher D., Paine, Russell M., Lowe, Walter R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5542096/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967117S00276
_version_ 1783254915783589888
author Griffin, Joshua
Bailey, Lane Brooks
Harner, Christopher D.
Paine, Russell M.
Lowe, Walter R.
author_facet Griffin, Joshua
Bailey, Lane Brooks
Harner, Christopher D.
Paine, Russell M.
Lowe, Walter R.
author_sort Griffin, Joshua
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Post-operative pain control is critical to successful outcomes following outpatient anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Femoral nerve blockade (FNB) has traditionally been employed to provide analgesia for ACLR since its inception in the early 1990’s. Recent studies, however, suggest a significant reduction in quadriceps muscle strength, and increased fall risk with the use of FNB. To mitigate the loss in muscle function and patient safety, surgeons and anesthesiologists have recently been exploring the potential benefits of a motor sparing adductor canal nerve blockade (ACB). To date, however, few comparative studies exist within an ACL reconstruction population to determine its clinical utility. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare acute pain control, quadriceps muscle activation and patient function between FNB and ACB following ACL reconstruction out to 4 weeks. METHODS: One-hundred and twenty-three patients (ACB, n = 63 and FNB, n= 60) undergoing ACL reconstruction by a single surgeon (WRL) were recruited to participate in this study. Patient demographics were similar for age (28.3 ±11.1 vs 26.7 ±10.0; P =.68), gender (61.9% male vs % male; P =.17), and BMI (26 ±6 vs 27 ±8; P =.79) for ACB and FNB groups, respectively. Pain control was measured within the first 24 hours of surgery using the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) and opioid use in morphine units (mg). Quadriceps muscle activation was measured using surface electromyography (EMG) and recorded as the deficit between the involved and uninvolved limbs (µV). Quadriceps function was clinically assessed by the number of straight leg raises performed (without a lag), and the ability to meet our criteria for ambulation without an assistive device at 24 hrs, 2 wks, and 4 wks postoperatively. A mixed-model ANOVA (group x time) was used for all statistical comparisons with an a priori α =.05. RESULTS: There were no differences in NPRS score (2.4 ±1.7 vs 2.6 ±2.0; P =.52), and Morphine units (24.1 mg ±16.3 vs 22.8 mg ±15.6; P =.61) for ACB and FNB groups thru 24 hours post-surgery. Quadriceps muscle activation deficits were lower for the ACB group at each testing timeframe (Figure 1); 24 hours (196.2 µV ±21.0 vs 227.6 µV±23.7; P =.02), 2 weeks (87.3 µV ±19.5 vs 179.2 µV ±15.2; P <.01), and 4 weeks (56.4 µV ±18.3 vs 118.9 µV ±17.1; P =.02). The ability to meet criteria for ambulation without an assistive device was higher at 4 weeks for patients receiving ACB versus FNB (98.4% vs 90.0% ; P =.01). No statistical differences were observed for the number of straight leg raises performed at any timeframe (P >.05). CONCLUSION: The primary results of this study show that ACB provides similar pain control with improved quadriceps muscle activation compared to FNB acutely following ACL reconstruction. Additionally, the ability to ambulate without an assistive device appears to occur sooner for patients receiving ACB. No differences were observed in the number of straight leg raises performed up to 4 wks post-surgery. Surgeons should consider the potential benefits of ACB for post-operative analgesia when performing ACL reconstruction.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5542096
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55420962017-08-24 Femoral Nerve Blockade versus Adductor Canal Nerve Blockade with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial Griffin, Joshua Bailey, Lane Brooks Harner, Christopher D. Paine, Russell M. Lowe, Walter R. Orthop J Sports Med Article OBJECTIVES: Post-operative pain control is critical to successful outcomes following outpatient anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Femoral nerve blockade (FNB) has traditionally been employed to provide analgesia for ACLR since its inception in the early 1990’s. Recent studies, however, suggest a significant reduction in quadriceps muscle strength, and increased fall risk with the use of FNB. To mitigate the loss in muscle function and patient safety, surgeons and anesthesiologists have recently been exploring the potential benefits of a motor sparing adductor canal nerve blockade (ACB). To date, however, few comparative studies exist within an ACL reconstruction population to determine its clinical utility. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare acute pain control, quadriceps muscle activation and patient function between FNB and ACB following ACL reconstruction out to 4 weeks. METHODS: One-hundred and twenty-three patients (ACB, n = 63 and FNB, n= 60) undergoing ACL reconstruction by a single surgeon (WRL) were recruited to participate in this study. Patient demographics were similar for age (28.3 ±11.1 vs 26.7 ±10.0; P =.68), gender (61.9% male vs % male; P =.17), and BMI (26 ±6 vs 27 ±8; P =.79) for ACB and FNB groups, respectively. Pain control was measured within the first 24 hours of surgery using the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) and opioid use in morphine units (mg). Quadriceps muscle activation was measured using surface electromyography (EMG) and recorded as the deficit between the involved and uninvolved limbs (µV). Quadriceps function was clinically assessed by the number of straight leg raises performed (without a lag), and the ability to meet our criteria for ambulation without an assistive device at 24 hrs, 2 wks, and 4 wks postoperatively. A mixed-model ANOVA (group x time) was used for all statistical comparisons with an a priori α =.05. RESULTS: There were no differences in NPRS score (2.4 ±1.7 vs 2.6 ±2.0; P =.52), and Morphine units (24.1 mg ±16.3 vs 22.8 mg ±15.6; P =.61) for ACB and FNB groups thru 24 hours post-surgery. Quadriceps muscle activation deficits were lower for the ACB group at each testing timeframe (Figure 1); 24 hours (196.2 µV ±21.0 vs 227.6 µV±23.7; P =.02), 2 weeks (87.3 µV ±19.5 vs 179.2 µV ±15.2; P <.01), and 4 weeks (56.4 µV ±18.3 vs 118.9 µV ±17.1; P =.02). The ability to meet criteria for ambulation without an assistive device was higher at 4 weeks for patients receiving ACB versus FNB (98.4% vs 90.0% ; P =.01). No statistical differences were observed for the number of straight leg raises performed at any timeframe (P >.05). CONCLUSION: The primary results of this study show that ACB provides similar pain control with improved quadriceps muscle activation compared to FNB acutely following ACL reconstruction. Additionally, the ability to ambulate without an assistive device appears to occur sooner for patients receiving ACB. No differences were observed in the number of straight leg raises performed up to 4 wks post-surgery. Surgeons should consider the potential benefits of ACB for post-operative analgesia when performing ACL reconstruction. SAGE Publications 2017-07-31 /pmc/articles/PMC5542096/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967117S00276 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This open-access article is published and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - No Derivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits the noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction of the article in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this article without the permission of the Author(s). For reprints and permission queries, please visit SAGE’s Web site at http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav.
spellingShingle Article
Griffin, Joshua
Bailey, Lane Brooks
Harner, Christopher D.
Paine, Russell M.
Lowe, Walter R.
Femoral Nerve Blockade versus Adductor Canal Nerve Blockade with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial
title Femoral Nerve Blockade versus Adductor Canal Nerve Blockade with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial
title_full Femoral Nerve Blockade versus Adductor Canal Nerve Blockade with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial
title_fullStr Femoral Nerve Blockade versus Adductor Canal Nerve Blockade with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial
title_full_unstemmed Femoral Nerve Blockade versus Adductor Canal Nerve Blockade with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial
title_short Femoral Nerve Blockade versus Adductor Canal Nerve Blockade with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial
title_sort femoral nerve blockade versus adductor canal nerve blockade with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized clinical trial
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5542096/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967117S00276
work_keys_str_mv AT griffinjoshua femoralnerveblockadeversusadductorcanalnerveblockadewithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionaprospectiverandomizedclinicaltrial
AT baileylanebrooks femoralnerveblockadeversusadductorcanalnerveblockadewithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionaprospectiverandomizedclinicaltrial
AT harnerchristopherd femoralnerveblockadeversusadductorcanalnerveblockadewithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionaprospectiverandomizedclinicaltrial
AT painerussellm femoralnerveblockadeversusadductorcanalnerveblockadewithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionaprospectiverandomizedclinicaltrial
AT lowewalterr femoralnerveblockadeversusadductorcanalnerveblockadewithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionaprospectiverandomizedclinicaltrial