Comparison of ultrasound-guided genicular block vs. intrathecal morphine for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing knee arthroplasty: A randomised prospective study

Ebru Canakci, Ilker Coskun
{"title":"Comparison of ultrasound-guided genicular block vs. intrathecal morphine for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing knee arthroplasty: A randomised prospective study","authors":"Ebru Canakci, Ilker Coskun","doi":"10.20528/cjpm.2023.02.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a major orthopedic surgical procedure often necessitating effective postoperative analgesia. This study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided genicular block (GB) and intrathecal morphine (ITM) in patients undergoing THA under spinal anesthesia.Method: A prospective, randomized, single-blind study was conducted at Ordu University Training and Research Hospital from October 1, 2022, to April 1, 2023. Eligible patients aged 18 to 90 undergoing knee surgery with spinal anesthesia were randomized into two groups: Group ITM received intrathecal morphine, while Group GB underwent ultrasound-guided triple genicular block. Pain scores, rescue opioid consumption, time to initial mobilization, and Modified Bromage Scale (MBS) scores were assessed at five time points (0, 2, 6, 12, and 24 hours) within the first 24 hours post-surgery.Results: At the 24-hour mark, cumulative tramadol consumption was significantly lower in Group ITM compared to Group GB (35.45±54.84 vs. 63.37±37.7 mg, respectively, p = 0.028). Group ITM also exhibited statistically lower Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores at 12 hours (p = 0.005) but had similar scores at other time points. Additionally, time to first ambulation and MBS scores were consistent across all intervals (p < 0.05).Conclusions: In patients undergoing knee arthroplasty with spinal anesthesia, those receiving ultrasound-guided genicular blocks demonstrated higher opioid consumption over a 24-hour period compared to those receiving intrathecal morphine. However, regarding postoperative pain scores, both groups exhibited similar outcomes. These findings provide valuable insights into the selection of postoperative analgesic modalities for TKA patients.","PeriodicalId":118668,"journal":{"name":"Challenge Journal of Perioperative Medicine","volume":"200 6","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Challenge Journal of Perioperative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20528/cjpm.2023.02.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a major orthopedic surgical procedure often necessitating effective postoperative analgesia. This study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided genicular block (GB) and intrathecal morphine (ITM) in patients undergoing THA under spinal anesthesia.Method: A prospective, randomized, single-blind study was conducted at Ordu University Training and Research Hospital from October 1, 2022, to April 1, 2023. Eligible patients aged 18 to 90 undergoing knee surgery with spinal anesthesia were randomized into two groups: Group ITM received intrathecal morphine, while Group GB underwent ultrasound-guided triple genicular block. Pain scores, rescue opioid consumption, time to initial mobilization, and Modified Bromage Scale (MBS) scores were assessed at five time points (0, 2, 6, 12, and 24 hours) within the first 24 hours post-surgery.Results: At the 24-hour mark, cumulative tramadol consumption was significantly lower in Group ITM compared to Group GB (35.45±54.84 vs. 63.37±37.7 mg, respectively, p = 0.028). Group ITM also exhibited statistically lower Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores at 12 hours (p = 0.005) but had similar scores at other time points. Additionally, time to first ambulation and MBS scores were consistent across all intervals (p < 0.05).Conclusions: In patients undergoing knee arthroplasty with spinal anesthesia, those receiving ultrasound-guided genicular blocks demonstrated higher opioid consumption over a 24-hour period compared to those receiving intrathecal morphine. However, regarding postoperative pain scores, both groups exhibited similar outcomes. These findings provide valuable insights into the selection of postoperative analgesic modalities for TKA patients.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超声引导下膝关节阻滞与鞘内吗啡用于膝关节置换术患者术后镇痛的比较:一项随机前瞻性研究
目的:全膝关节置换术(TKA)是一种主要的骨科手术,通常需要有效的术后镇痛。本研究旨在比较超声引导下膝关节阻滞(GB)与鞘内吗啡(ITM)对脊柱麻醉下THA患者的镇痛效果。方法:于2022年10月1日至2023年4月1日在奥尔都大学培训与研究医院进行前瞻性、随机、单盲研究。年龄18 ~ 90岁,行脊柱麻醉膝关节手术的患者随机分为两组:ITM组行鞘内吗啡,GB组行超声引导下膝关节三段式阻滞。在术后最初24小时内的5个时间点(0、2、6、12和24小时)评估疼痛评分、救援阿片类药物消耗、初始活动时间和改良Bromage量表(MBS)评分。结果:24小时时,ITM组曲马多累积用量明显低于GB组(分别为35.45±54.84 mg和63.37±37.7 mg, p = 0.028)。ITM组在12小时也表现出较低的数值评定量表(NRS)得分(p = 0.005),但在其他时间点得分相似。此外,首次活动时间和MBS评分在所有时间间隔内是一致的(p <0.05)。结论:在脊柱麻醉下接受膝关节置换术的患者中,与接受鞘内吗啡的患者相比,接受超声引导的膝阻滞的患者在24小时内表现出更高的阿片类药物消耗。然而,关于术后疼痛评分,两组表现出相似的结果。这些发现为TKA患者术后镇痛方式的选择提供了有价值的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Analyzing the educational quality of YouTube videos on paravertebral block techniques Anaphylaxis following unfractionated heparin administration: How safe is this drug in the treatment of thromboembolism? Perioperative complications in patients undergoing urological surgery with spinal anesthesia: A prospective, observational study Comparison of dexmedetomidine dosing strategies based on Bispectral Index (BIS) and Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) in patients undergoing infraumbilical surgeries under spinal anesthesia: A prospective comparative study Perioperative ventricular dysrhythmia management in ranula cyst excision surgery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1