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.
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
超声引导下膝腘动脉及膝囊浸润[IPACK]与IPACK联合内收管阻滞[ACB]用于膝关节术后镇痛的比较研究
背景:围手术期疼痛控制在很大程度上影响术后恢复和手术效果。膝关节手术后的疼痛可能会延迟早期活动并影响恢复质量。减轻术后疼痛有助于功能恢复,从而促进早期康复。工作目的:以视觉模拟量表(VAS)作为膝关节镜术后疼痛评估的主要指标,评价和比较IPACK联合ACB与IPACK单独应用的术后镇痛效果和疗效。此外,血流动力学变化,阿片类药物总消耗量和患者满意度作为次要结果。患者和方法:这项前瞻性比较随机临床试验包括60例患者,年龄21-60岁,接受择期膝关节镜手术。他们被分为两组;第一组[对照组]:在腘动脉与膝关节囊间注射局麻药。这个过程被称为IPACK阻滞,II组[ACB组]接受IPACK阻滞加内收肌管阻滞[ACB]。结果:我们的研究表明,IPACK加ACB组16 h后VAS评分低于IPACK单独组,p值<0.001。IPACK+ ACB组要求镇痛的第一次次数和患者满意度较单独使用IPACK组有统计学意义(p值<0.001)。单独IPACK组16小时MAP和HR高于IPACK+内收肌阻滞组,p值<0.05。结论:膝关节手术后IPACK联合ACB在减轻术后疼痛、第一时间恢复镇痛和患者满意度方面优于单用IPACK,对血流动力学的影响较小。
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
85
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Unilateral Stereotactic Radiofrequency Thalamotomy for Tremors in Parkinson’s Patients Study of Early versus Delayed Oral Fluid and Food after Cesarean Section Comparative Study Between the Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy and Mini Gastric Bypass for Morbidly Obese Patients Effect of Resistance Training on Physical Performance in Underweight Females Efficacy of Topical Latanoprost Versus Topical Minoxidil In the Treatment of Alopecia Areata: Clinical and Dermoscopic Study
×
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:604180095
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