Comparison of pericapsular nerve group and lateral quadratus lumborum blocks on cumulative opioid consumption after primary total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-10 DOI:10.1136/rapm-2024-105875
Ellen Hay, Tara Kelly, Bethany J Wolf, Erik Hansen, Andrew Brown, Carla Lautenschlager, Sylvia H Wilson
{"title":"Comparison of pericapsular nerve group and lateral quadratus lumborum blocks on cumulative opioid consumption after primary total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Ellen Hay, Tara Kelly, Bethany J Wolf, Erik Hansen, Andrew Brown, Carla Lautenschlager, Sylvia H Wilson","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2024-105875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Both the quadratus lumborum block (QLB) and the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block provide effective postoperative analgesia after hip surgery while minimizing the impact on motor function. This study aimed to compare QLB and PENG in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This superiority trial randomized patients scheduled for elective THA to receive a lateral QLB or a PENG with a lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFC) block for postoperative analgesia. Perioperative analgesic protocols were standardized. The primary outcome was postoperative cumulative opioid consumption measured over time up to 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain scores in the first 72 hours, time to ambulation, length of stay, and patient-reported functional outcome measures (Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System-10 scores).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This trial consented and randomized 106 subjects and 101 were included in the analysis: PENG (n=50), QLB (n=51). Mean (95% CI) opioid consumption in intravenous morphine milligram equivalents differed at 36 hours (mean difference (95% CI), 18.0 (0.80, 35.1); p<i>=</i>0.040), 48 hours (23.0 (5.20, 40.8); p=0.011), 60 hours (28.0 (9.24, 46.7); p=0.004), and 72 hours (33.0 (13.0, 53.0); p=0.001). There were no significant differences between treatment arms in average resting pain score, time to ambulation, rate of same-day discharge, length of stay, or patient-reported functional outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While both lateral QLB and PENG block+LFC block are effective analgesic methods for patients undergoing THA, patients receiving lateral QLB had decreased cumulative opioid consumption from 36 to 72 hours postoperative and lower pain scores with movement compared with patients receiving PENG+LFC blocks.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT05710107.</p>","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2024-105875","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Both the quadratus lumborum block (QLB) and the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block provide effective postoperative analgesia after hip surgery while minimizing the impact on motor function. This study aimed to compare QLB and PENG in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods: This superiority trial randomized patients scheduled for elective THA to receive a lateral QLB or a PENG with a lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFC) block for postoperative analgesia. Perioperative analgesic protocols were standardized. The primary outcome was postoperative cumulative opioid consumption measured over time up to 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain scores in the first 72 hours, time to ambulation, length of stay, and patient-reported functional outcome measures (Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System-10 scores).

Results: This trial consented and randomized 106 subjects and 101 were included in the analysis: PENG (n=50), QLB (n=51). Mean (95% CI) opioid consumption in intravenous morphine milligram equivalents differed at 36 hours (mean difference (95% CI), 18.0 (0.80, 35.1); p=0.040), 48 hours (23.0 (5.20, 40.8); p=0.011), 60 hours (28.0 (9.24, 46.7); p=0.004), and 72 hours (33.0 (13.0, 53.0); p=0.001). There were no significant differences between treatment arms in average resting pain score, time to ambulation, rate of same-day discharge, length of stay, or patient-reported functional outcomes.

Conclusion: While both lateral QLB and PENG block+LFC block are effective analgesic methods for patients undergoing THA, patients receiving lateral QLB had decreased cumulative opioid consumption from 36 to 72 hours postoperative and lower pain scores with movement compared with patients receiving PENG+LFC blocks.

Trial registration number: NCT05710107.

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
初级全髋关节置换术后囊周神经组和外侧腰方肌阻滞对阿片类药物累积用量的影响比较:随机对照试验。
简介:腰方肌阻滞(QLB)和肩胛周围神经群(PENG)阻滞都能在髋关节手术后提供有效的术后镇痛,同时最大限度地减少对运动功能的影响。本研究旨在对接受初级全髋关节置换术(THA)的患者进行 QLB 和 PENG 的比较:这项优越性试验将计划接受择期全髋关节置换术的患者随机分为两组,分别接受外侧 QLB 或带有股外侧皮神经 (LFC) 阻滞的 PENG 术后镇痛。围手术期镇痛方案已标准化。主要结果是术后72小时内阿片类药物的累积用量。次要结果包括术后 72 小时内的疼痛评分、行走时间、住院时间和患者报告的功能结果测量(髋关节残疾和关节置换骨关节炎结果评分以及患者报告结果测量信息系统-10 评分):该试验同意并随机抽取了106名受试者,其中101名纳入分析:PENG(n=50)、QLB(n=51)。静脉注射吗啡毫克当量的阿片类药物平均消耗量(95% CI)在36小时(平均差异(95% CI),18.0(0.80,35.1);p=0.040)、48小时(23.0(5.20,40.8);p=0.011)、60小时(28.0(9.24,46.7);p=0.004)和72小时(33.0(13.0,53.0);p=0.001)时有所不同。治疗组之间在平均静息痛评分、行走时间、当天出院率、住院时间或患者报告的功能结果方面没有明显差异:结论:虽然侧位QLB和PENG阻滞+LFC阻滞对接受THA的患者都是有效的镇痛方法,但与接受PENG+LFC阻滞的患者相比,接受侧位QLB的患者在术后36至72小时内的阿片类药物累积用量减少,活动时的疼痛评分降低:试验注册号:NCT05710107。
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
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
175
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, the official publication of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA), is a monthly journal that publishes peer-reviewed scientific and clinical studies to advance the understanding and clinical application of regional techniques for surgical anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. Coverage includes intraoperative regional techniques, perioperative pain, chronic pain, obstetric anesthesia, pediatric anesthesia, outcome studies, and complications. Published for over thirty years, this respected journal also serves as the official publication of the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy (ESRA), the Asian and Oceanic Society of Regional Anesthesia (AOSRA), the Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia (LASRA), the African Society for Regional Anesthesia (AFSRA), and the Academy of Regional Anaesthesia of India (AORA).
期刊最新文献
Prevalence and risk factors for chronic postamputation pain requiring analgesia or nerve interventions: a population-based study in East Asia. Clinical study of a micro-implantable pulse generator for the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain: 12-month results from the COMFORT-randomized controlled trial. Axonal sensitivity and block dynamics. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections versus platelet-rich plasma as a treatment for cervical facetogenic pain: a randomized clinical trial. Structural changes in the nociceptive system induced by long-term conventional spinal cord stimulation in experimental painful diabetic polyneuropathy.
×
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