Transmuscular Quadratus Lumborum Block versus Suprainguinal Fascia Iliaca Block for Hip Arthroplasty: A Randomized, Controlled Pilot Study.
fascia iliaca block
hip arthroplasty
quadratus lumborum block
Journal
Local and regional anesthesia
ISSN: 1178-7112
Titre abrégé: Local Reg Anesth
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101566276
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
01
03
2021
accepted:
24
03
2021
entrez:
28
4
2021
pubmed:
29
4
2021
medline:
29
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aimed to investigate the analgesic efficacy and motor block profile of single-shot transmuscular quadratus lumborum block (QLB) in comparison with those of suprainguinal fascia iliaca block (FIB) in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty. This randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial included adult patients undergoing hip arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia. Patients were allocated to one of two groups according to the regional block received: FIB group (n=19) or QLB group (n=17). Both study groups were compared with regard to the duration of analgesia (primary outcome), block performance time, pain during positioning for spinal anesthesia, total morphine consumption in the first postoperative 24-h period, quadriceps muscle power, and static and dynamic visual analog scale. Thirty-six patients were included in the final analysis. Both study groups had comparable durations of analgesia. Postoperative visual analog scale (static and dynamic) values were comparable between the two groups in most readings. The block performance time was shorter in the FIB group. The number of patients with pain during positioning for the subarachnoid block was lower in the QLB group. The total morphine requirement during the first 24 h was marginally lower in the FIB group, whereas the quadriceps motor grade was higher in the FIB group than in the QLB group at 4 h and 6 h after surgery. Both single-shot blocks, namely the suprainguinal FIB and transmuscular QLB, provide effective postoperative analgesia after hip arthroplasty. FIB showed slightly lower 24-h morphine consumption, while QLB showed better quadriceps motor power. The study was registered at clinical trials registry system before enrollment of the first participant (NCT04005326; initial release date, 2 July 2019; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04005326).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to investigate the analgesic efficacy and motor block profile of single-shot transmuscular quadratus lumborum block (QLB) in comparison with those of suprainguinal fascia iliaca block (FIB) in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty.
METHODS
METHODS
This randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial included adult patients undergoing hip arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia. Patients were allocated to one of two groups according to the regional block received: FIB group (n=19) or QLB group (n=17). Both study groups were compared with regard to the duration of analgesia (primary outcome), block performance time, pain during positioning for spinal anesthesia, total morphine consumption in the first postoperative 24-h period, quadriceps muscle power, and static and dynamic visual analog scale.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thirty-six patients were included in the final analysis. Both study groups had comparable durations of analgesia. Postoperative visual analog scale (static and dynamic) values were comparable between the two groups in most readings. The block performance time was shorter in the FIB group. The number of patients with pain during positioning for the subarachnoid block was lower in the QLB group. The total morphine requirement during the first 24 h was marginally lower in the FIB group, whereas the quadriceps motor grade was higher in the FIB group than in the QLB group at 4 h and 6 h after surgery.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Both single-shot blocks, namely the suprainguinal FIB and transmuscular QLB, provide effective postoperative analgesia after hip arthroplasty. FIB showed slightly lower 24-h morphine consumption, while QLB showed better quadriceps motor power.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
The study was registered at clinical trials registry system before enrollment of the first participant (NCT04005326; initial release date, 2 July 2019; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04005326).
Identifiants
pubmed: 33907462
doi: 10.2147/LRA.S308964
pii: 308964
pmc: PMC8068517
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04005326']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
67-74Informations de copyright
© 2021 Nassar et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors reported no conflicts of interest for this work. This paper and the abstract of this paper have not been presented at a conference.
Références
Anaesthesia. 2020 Jan;75 Suppl 1:e101-e110
pubmed: 31903582
Anesthesiol Clin. 2018 Sep;36(3):403-415
pubmed: 30092937
Can J Anaesth. 2018 Feb;65(2):178-187
pubmed: 29164530
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019 Feb;44(2):206-211
pubmed: 30700615
Anesth Analg. 2002 Jun;94(6):1606-13, table of contents
pubmed: 12032037
Br J Anaesth. 2016 Sep;117(3):387-94
pubmed: 27543534
Anesthesiology. 2019 Feb;130(2):322-335
pubmed: 30688787
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019 Oct 25;:
pubmed: 31653800
Minerva Anestesiol. 2019 Dec;85(12):1273-1280
pubmed: 31486620
J Clin Anesth. 2020 Nov;66:109907
pubmed: 32502775
J Anesth. 2020 Jun;34(3):413-420
pubmed: 32232659
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017 May/Jun;42(3):327-333
pubmed: 28059869
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2019 Mar;33(1):57-66
pubmed: 31272654
Indian J Anaesth. 2010 May;54(3):268-9
pubmed: 20885886
Can J Anaesth. 2019 Aug;66(8):894-906
pubmed: 30953311
J Anesth. 2019 Aug;33(4):516-522
pubmed: 31264111
Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2019 Mar - Apr;69(2):208-210
pubmed: 30195631
Br J Anaesth. 2015 Nov;115(5):699-707
pubmed: 26041717