Effect of suprainguinal fascia iliaca compartment block on postoperative opioid consumption and functional recovery in posterolateral-approached total hip arthroplasty: a single-blind randomized controlled trial

Ultrasound-guided suprainguinal fascia iliaca compartment block and early postoperative analgesia after total hip arthroplasty: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hip replacement surgery can be painful; postoperative analgesia is crucial for comfort and to facilitate recovery. Regional anaesthesia can reduce pain and postoperative opioid requirements. The role of ultrasound-guided suprainguinal fascia iliaca block for analgesia after elective total hip arthroplasty is not well defined. This randomised trial evaluated its analgesic efficacy.

METHODS

Consenting participants (134) scheduled for elective primary total hip arthroplasty under spinal anaesthesia were randomly allocated to receive ultrasound-guided fascia iliaca block with ropivacaine 0.5% or sham block with saline. The primary outcome was opioid consumption in the first 24 h after surgery. Additional outcomes included pain scores at 4, 8, 12, and 16 h, opioid-related side-effects (nausea, vomiting, pruritis), ability to perform physiotherapy on the first postoperative day, and physiotherapist-assessed quadriceps weakness.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in 24-h opioid consumption (block vs sham block, mean difference -3.2 mg oral morphine equivalent, 95% confidence interval -15.3 to 8.1 mg oral morphine equivalent, P=0.55) or any other prespecified outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty, ultrasound-guided suprainguinal fascia iliaca block with ropivacaine did not confer a significant opioid-sparing effect compared with sham block. There were no differences in other secondary outcomes including pain scores, opioid-related side-effects, or ability to perform physiotherapy on the first postoperative day.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov (NCT03069183).

Use of Peripheral Nerve Blocks for Total hip Arthroplasty

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to summarize the recent literature regarding regional anesthesia (RA) techniques and outcomes for total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the face of changing surgical techniques and perioperative considerations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Based on large meta-analyses, peripheral nerve blocks are indicated for THA. Each block has its own risks and benefits and data for outcomes for particular techniques are limited. New surgical techniques, improved use of multimodal analgesia, and improved ultrasound guided regional anesthetics lead to better pain control for patients undergoing THA with less associated risks. Block selection continues to be influenced by provider comfort, surgical approach, patient anatomy, and postoperative goals. Head-to-head studies of particular nerve blocks are warranted.

The Effectiveness of Quadratus Lumborum and Fascia Iliaca Blocks on Patient Outcomes in Hip Arthroplasty

Hip arthroplasty is a common procedure with high costs and difficult rehabilitation. It causes postoperative pain, and this can reduce mobility which extends in-patient time. An optimal analgesia regime is crucial to identify. Opioids produce effective pain relief but are associated with nausea, vomiting, and respiratory depression which can hinder physiotherapy and discharge. Finding alternatives has been of interest in recent years, particularly fascial blocks. These are anaesthetic injections beneath fascia which spread to nerves providing pain relief from surgery and are used with a general or spinal anaesthetic. Two of these blocks which are of interest to total hip arthroplasty are the quadratus lumborum block and fascia iliaca block. Studies have investigated the effectiveness of these blocks through patient factors, primarily pain scores, opioid consumption, and other secondary outcomes such as ambulation and length of stay. This review takes a narrative approach and investigates the literature around the topic. Pain and opioid consumption were the most widely reported outcomes, reported in 90% and 86% of studies. 83% of these studies reported positive effects on pain scores when FIB was utilised. 80% of these studies reported positive effects on opioid consumption when FIB was used. When QLB block was utilised, pain and opioid consumption were positively impacted in 82% of studies. This paper has been written with the intention of reviewing current literature to give an impression of the effectiveness of the blocks and propose potential areas for future work on the blocks.

The minimum effective concentration (MEC90) of bupivacaine for an ultrasound-guided suprainguinal fascia iliaca compartment block for analgesia in knee surgery: a dose-finding study

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the suprainguinal fascia iliaca compartment block (SFICB) has become more common in clinical practice. This assessor-blinded dose-finding study aimed to determine the minimum effective concentration (MEC90, MEC95) of bupivacaine for a single-injection SFICB in patients undergoing arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament repair.

METHODS

This prospective study was conducted at a tertiary hospital (postoperative recovery room and ward). The SFICB was performed as a postsurgical intervention after spinal anesthesia. Seventy patients were allocated using the biased-coin design up-and-down sequential method. The ultrasound-guided SFICB was performed using different bupivacaine concentrations, and standard multimodal analgesia was administered to all patients. Block success was defined as the absence of pain or presence of only tactile sensation during the pinprick test conducted on the anterior and lateral regions of the mid-thigh six hours postoperatively.

RESULTS

According to isotonic regression and bootstrap CIs, the MEC90 value of bupivacaine for a successful SFICB was 0.123% (95% CI [0.098, 0.191]) and the MEC95 value was 0.188% (95% CI [0.113, 0.223]).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that the MEC90 and MEC95 values for bupivacaine administered via an SFICB for analgesia were 0.123% and 0.188%, respectively. One advantage of using lower concentrations of bupivacaine is the associated reduction in quadriceps weakness.

The efficacy of pericapsular nerve group block for reducing pain and opioid consumption after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pericapsular nerve group block (PENG) is an emerging regional anesthesia technique for hip surgery. However, its efficacy in total hip arthroplasty (THA) isn't well defined. We perform this meta-analysis aiming to assess the effect of Pericapsular nerve group block on pain control and morphine consumption in patients with total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

We searched four electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science dated from 2018 to October 2023) for published eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PENG with placebo (no block/sham block) after THA. The outcome measurements consisted of pain score, opioid consumption, Time to first opioid, and postoperative complications. All data analyses were performed using STATA 12.0.

RESULTS

Five RCTs comprising 808 participants were included. Our meta-analysis showed that there were significant differences between two groups in terms of pain score in PACU (WMD =  - 0.598, 95% CI [- 0.886, - 0.310], P < 0.001), pain score at 6 h (WMD =  - 0.614, 95% CI [- 0.835, - 0.392], P < 0.001) and time to first opioid (WMD = 5.214, 95% CI [4.545, 5.883], P < 0.001). However, no significant differences were revealed from the pain score at 24 h after THA (WMD =  - 0.924, 95% CI [- 1.929, 0.081], P = 0.072). Meanwhile, the meta-analysis indicated that PENG significantly reduced 24-h opioid consumption (WMD =  - 6.168, 95% CI [- 6.667, - 5.668], P < 0.001) and 48-h opioid consumption (WMD =  - 7.171, 95% CI [- 8.994, - 5.348], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Pericapsular nerve group block was effective for pain control up to postoperative 6 h and extending the time to the first opioid after THA. Moreover, it reduced postoperative opioid consumption when compared with a placebo group. Due to the high heterogeneity of the pain score after 24 h and the low-quality evidence, more high-quality RCTs are required to draw a definitive conclusion about pain control.

Circum-Psoas Block versus Supra-Inguinal Fascia Iliaca Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Purpose

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is often associated with moderate to severe pain. The present study compared the efficacy of circum-psoas block (CPB) with supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block (SIFIB) for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing THA.

Patients and Methods

In this randomized trial, sixty-four patients undergoing THA were allocated randomly to the CPB group or SIFIB group with 40 mL of 0.3% ropivacaine. The primary outcome was dynamic pain score at 6 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included dynamic pain scores at 12, 24 and 48 h; static pain scores; sensory and motor block; opioid consumption; time to first opioid request; length of hospital stay; patient satisfaction; and adverse events.

Results

CPB patients showed significantly lower dynamic pain scores at 6 (3.11 ± 0.66 vs 4.47 ± 0.74, respectively; P = 0.000), 12 (2.52 ± 0.73 vs 3.53 ± 0.85, respectively; P = 0.000) and 24 h (2.30 ± 0.57 vs 2.87 ± 0.71, respectively; P = 0.001) after surgery, as well as lower static pain scores at 6 and 12h (P = 0.001 and P = 0.033 respectively) than SIFIB patients. Lower opioid consumption was observed in the CPB group at 24 and 48 h (P = 0.000, both) than in the SIFIB group. Patients in the CPB group reported improved quadriceps strength at 6 and 12 h (P = 0.000, both), as well as better muscle strength of hip flexion at 6, 12 and 24 h (P = 0.000, P = 0.000 and P = 0.025 respectively). Compared with SIFIB, CPB was associated with increased sensory block coverage at 6, 12 and 24 h (P = 0.000, P = 0.000, and P =0.022, respectively).

Conclusion

CPB has a greater potential to alleviate postoperative pain and improve recovery in THA patients than SIFIB.

Motor-sparing peripheral nerve blocks for hip and knee surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the recent literature describing and comparing novel motor-sparing peripheral nerve block techniques for hip and knee surgery. This topic is relevant because the number of patients undergoing same day discharge after hip and knee surgery is increasing. Preserving lower extremity muscle function is essential to facilitate early physical therapy for these patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Distal peripheral nerve blocks may allow for preserved quadriceps motor strength and comparable analgesia to traditional techniques. However, few studies in hip and knee populations include strength or function as primary outcomes. For hip surgeries, studies have failed to show analgesic differences between regional blocks and periarticular infiltration. Similarly for knee arthroplasty in the absence of periarticular infiltration, recent evidence suggests adding combinations of blocks (ACB plus iPACK or genicular nerve blocks) may balance pain control and early ambulation.

SUMMARY

The use of motor-sparing peripheral nerve block techniques enables early ambulation, adequate pain control, and avoidance of opioid-related side effects facilitating outpatient/ambulatory lower extremity surgery. Further studies of these techniques for continuous peripheral nerve block catheters are needed to assess if extended blockade continues to provide motor-sparing and opioid-sparing benefits.

Comparison between supra-inguinal fascia iliaca and pericapsular nerve group blocks on postoperative pain and functional recovery after total hip arthroplasty: A noninferiority randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Pain after a posterolateral approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) may affect early functional recovery. Supra-inguinal fascia iliaca (SFIB) and pericapsular nerve group (PENG) blocks have been proposed as promising analgesia techniques.

OBJECTIVES

This trial was conducted to compare a PENG with a SFIB for controlling postoperative pain and for providing functional recovery.

DESIGN

Noninferiority monocentric randomised controlled study.

SETTING

One hundred and two patients scheduled for a total hip arthroplasty via the posterolateral approach under spinal anaesthesia were prospectively allocated to two groups. Data acquisition occurred between October 2021 and July 2022 at the University Hospital of Liege.

PATIENTS

One hundred and two patients completed the trial.

INTERVENTIONS

Group SFIB received supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block (SFIB) (40 ml ropivacaine 0.375%), whereas group PENG received a PENG block (20 ml ropivacaine 0.75%).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rest and mobilisation pain on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale at fixed time points: 1 and 6 h after surgery, on day-1 and day-2 at 8 a.m.,1 p.m. and 6 p.m. On day-1 and day-2, evolution of quality-of-recovery-15 score was assessed, and timed-up-and-go, 2 and 6 min-walking tests. The noninferiority margin was set as 1 numeric rating scale point 6 h after surgery.

RESULTS

Six hours after surgery, pain scores in group PENG were noninferior to those of group SFIB, with a difference between medians at 0 (95% CI -0.93 to 0.93). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding rest and dynamic pain trajectories during the first 48 postoperative hours, with no significant effects of group (rest P  = 0.800; dynamic P  = 0.708) or interaction between group and time (rest P  = 0.803; dynamic P  = 0.187). Similarly, no significant differences were observed regarding motor and functional recovery as assessed by timed-up-and-go ( P  = 0.197), 2 min ( P  = 0.364), and 6 min walking ( P  = 0.347) tests and quality-of-recovery-15 ( P  = 0.417) score.

CONCLUSION

Following a total hip arthroplasty via the posterolateral approach, a PENG block is noninferior to SFIB regarding postoperative pain control 6 h after surgery, and functional recovery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

European Clinical Trial Register under EudraCT-number 2020-005126-28 ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-005126-28/BE ).