Search

Aims: Adductor canal block (ACB) has emerged as an alternative to femoral nerve block (FNB) for analgesia after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The optimal duration of maintenance of the ACB is still questionable. The purpose of this study was to compare the analgesic benefits and physiotherapy (PT) outcomes of single-shot ACB to two different regimens of infusion of the continuous ACB, 24-hour and 48-hour infusion., Patients and Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, unblinded study. A total of 159 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I to III patients scheduled for primary TKA were randomized to one of three study groups. Three patients did not complete the study, leaving 156 patients for final analysis. Group A (n = 53) was the single-shot group (16 female patients and 37 male patients with a mean age of 63.9 years (sd 9.6)), group B (n = 51) was the 24-hour infusion group (22 female patients and 29 male patients with a mean age of 66.5 years (sd 8.5)), and group C (n = 52) was the 48-hour infusion group (18 female patients and 34 male patients with a mean age of 62.2 years (sd 8.7)). Pain scores, opioid requirements, PT test results, and patient-reported outcome instruments were compared between the three groups., Results: The proportion of patients reporting severe pain, defined as a pain score of between 7 and 10, on postoperative day number 2 (POD 2) were 21% for the single-shot group, 14% for the 24-hour block group, and 12% for the 48-hour block group (p = 0.05). Cumulative opioid requirements after 48 hours were similar between the groups. Functional outcomes were similar in all three groups in POD 1 and POD 2., Conclusion: There was no clear benefit of the 24-hour or 48-hour infusions over the single-shot ACB for the primary endpoint of the study. Otherwise, there were marginal benefits for keeping the indwelling catheter for 48 hours in terms of reducing the number of patients with moderate pain and improving the quality of pain management. However, all three groups had similar opioid usage, length of hospital stay, and functional outcomes. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:340-347.

Background: Adductor canal block (ACB) has emerged as an appealing alternative to femoral nerve block (FNB) that produces a predominantly sensory nerve block by anesthetizing the saphenous nerve. Studies have shown greater quadriceps strength preservation with ACB compared with FNB, but no advantage has yet been shown in terms of fall risk. The Tinetti scale is used by physical therapists to assess gait and balance, and total score can estimate a patient's fall risk. We designed this study to test the primary hypothesis that FNB results in a greater proportion of "high fall risk" patients postoperatively using the Tinetti score compared with ACB., Methods: After institutional review board approval, informed written consent to participate in the study was obtained. Patients undergoing primary unilateral total knee arthroplasty were eligible for enrollment in this double-blind, randomized trial. Patients received either an ACB or FNB (20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine) with catheter placement (8 mL/h of 0.2% ropivacaine) in the setting of multimodal analgesia. Continuous infusion was stopped in the morning of postoperative day (POD)1 before starting physical therapy (PT). On POD1, PT assessed the primary outcome using the Tinetti score for gait and balance. Patients were considered to be at high risk of falling if they scored <19. Secondary outcomes included manual muscle testing of the quadriceps muscle strength, Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, and ambulation distance on POD1 and POD2. The quality of postoperative analgesia and the quality of recovery were assessed with American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire Revised and Quality of Recovery-9 questionnaire, respectively., Results: Sixty-two patients were enrolled in the study (31 ACB and 31 FNB). No difference was found in the proportion of "high fall risk" patients on POD1 (21/31 in the ACB group versus 24/31 in the FNB group [P = 0.7]; relative risk, 1.14 [95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.56]) or POD2 (7/31 in the ACB versus 14/31 in the FNB group [P = 0.06]; relative risk, 2.0 [95% confidence interval, 0.94-4.27]). The average distance of ambulation during PT and time to up and go were similar on POD1 and POD2. Manual muscle testing grades were significantly higher on POD1 in the ACB group when compared with that in the FNB (P = 0.001) (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds, 2.25 [95% confidence interval, 1.35-4.26]). There were no other differences in postoperative outcomes., Conclusions: ACB results in greater preservation of quadriceps muscle strength. Although we did not detect a significant reduction in fall risk when compared with FNB, based on the upper limit of the relative risk, it may very well be present. Further study is needed with a larger sample size.