Ultrasound Guided Infiltration of Popliteal Artery and Capsule of Knee [IPACK] versus IPACK with Adductor Canal Block [ACB] for Postoperative Knee Surgery Analgesia: A Comparative Study
Mohamed Arafa Shehata, M. Sharf, Ali El-komity, A. Abdelattif
{"title":"Ultrasound Guided Infiltration of Popliteal Artery and Capsule of Knee [IPACK] versus IPACK with Adductor Canal Block [ACB] for Postoperative Knee Surgery Analgesia: A Comparative Study","authors":"Mohamed Arafa Shehata, M. Sharf, Ali El-komity, A. Abdelattif","doi":"10.21608/ijma.2023.167712.1524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Article information Background: Perioperative pain control largely affects postoperative recovery and surgical outcome. Post-operative pain after knee surgery may delay early ambulation and impair quality of recovery. Relieving postoperative pain provides functional recovery which leads to early rehabilitation. Aim of the work: To evaluate and compare postoperative analgesia and efficiency of IPACK in combination with ACB with IPACK alone using the visual analogue scale [VAS] for postoperative pain assessment after knee arthroscopic surgery as primary outcome. Also, hemodynamic changes, total opioid consumption and patient satisfaction as secondary outcomes. Patients and Methods: This prospective comparative randomized clinical trial included 60 patients, aged 21-60 years, who underwent elective knee arthroscopic surgery. They were divided into two groups; group I [control group]: a local anesthetic was injected between the popliteal artery and the knee joint capsule. This procedure is known as an IPACK block, and group II [ACB group] received IPACK block plus adductor canal block [ACB]. Results: Our study demonstrated that there was a statistically significant lower pain score assessed by VAS score after 16 hours among IPACK plus ACB group than IPACK alone group with p-value <0.001. Also, there was a statistically significant increased 1st time for request analgesia and increased patient satisfaction in IPACK+ ACB compared to IPACK alone with p-value <0.001. Also, there is a statistically significant higher MAP and HR at 16 hours with IPACK alone group compared to IPACK+ Adductor block group with p-value <0.05. Conclusion: Combination of IPACK and ACB after knee surgeries better than IPACK alone regarding reducing postoperative pain, 1 st time to rescue analgesia and patient satisfaction, with less effects on hemodynamics.","PeriodicalId":53130,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Arts","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Arts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/ijma.2023.167712.1524","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
Article information Background: Perioperative pain control largely affects postoperative recovery and surgical outcome. Post-operative pain after knee surgery may delay early ambulation and impair quality of recovery. Relieving postoperative pain provides functional recovery which leads to early rehabilitation. Aim of the work: To evaluate and compare postoperative analgesia and efficiency of IPACK in combination with ACB with IPACK alone using the visual analogue scale [VAS] for postoperative pain assessment after knee arthroscopic surgery as primary outcome. Also, hemodynamic changes, total opioid consumption and patient satisfaction as secondary outcomes. Patients and Methods: This prospective comparative randomized clinical trial included 60 patients, aged 21-60 years, who underwent elective knee arthroscopic surgery. They were divided into two groups; group I [control group]: a local anesthetic was injected between the popliteal artery and the knee joint capsule. This procedure is known as an IPACK block, and group II [ACB group] received IPACK block plus adductor canal block [ACB]. Results: Our study demonstrated that there was a statistically significant lower pain score assessed by VAS score after 16 hours among IPACK plus ACB group than IPACK alone group with p-value <0.001. Also, there was a statistically significant increased 1st time for request analgesia and increased patient satisfaction in IPACK+ ACB compared to IPACK alone with p-value <0.001. Also, there is a statistically significant higher MAP and HR at 16 hours with IPACK alone group compared to IPACK+ Adductor block group with p-value <0.05. Conclusion: Combination of IPACK and ACB after knee surgeries better than IPACK alone regarding reducing postoperative pain, 1 st time to rescue analgesia and patient satisfaction, with less effects on hemodynamics.