4.6 Article

Femoral nerve catheter vs local infiltration for analgesia in fast track total knee arthroplasty: short-term and long-term outcomes

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
卷 121, 期 4, 页码 850-858

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2018.05.069

关键词

local anaesthesia; arthroplasty; nerve block; postoperative pain

资金

  1. Department of Anaesthesiology, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The aim was to compare the effects on short-term and long-term pain and functional outcome of periarticular local anaesthetic infiltration (LIA) with LIA of the posterior knee capsule in combination with a femoral nerve block (FNB) catheter in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Methods: Eighty patients were randomised to one of two groups: Subjects in group LIA received periarticular LIA with ropivacaine 0.2% for postoperative analgesia; subjects in group FNB received LIA of the posterior capsule and a FNB catheter. The primary outcome parameter was functional capacity of the knee 12 months after surgery. Secondary parameters included mobility as determined by accelerometer data, pain, satisfaction with the analgesic regimen, hospital length of stay, and use of pain medication 3 and 12 months after surgery. Results: There were no differences between groups in long-term functional capacity, patient satisfaction and hospital length of stay. In the first 2 days, subjects in group FNB had slightly lower pain scores and used less opioids, and subjects in group LIA had a higher level of accelerometer activity. Three and 12 months after surgery, subjects in group FNB had lower maximum pain scores and were less likely to use any pain medication 12 months after surgery. Conclusions: Both techniques were similar regarding long-term functional outcome. Subjects in group FNB had slightly lower pain scores and lower opioid consumption after operation, lower maximum pain scores at 3 and 12 months, and were less likely to use any pain medication at 12 months.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据