Continuous block at the proximal end of the adductor canal provides better analgesia compared to that at the middle of the canal after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

Yuda Fei, Xulei Cui, Shaohui Chen, Huiming Peng, Bin Feng, Wenwei Qian, Jin Lin, Xisheng Weng, Yuguang Huang, Yuda Fei, Xulei Cui, Shaohui Chen, Huiming Peng, Bin Feng, Wenwei Qian, Jin Lin, Xisheng Weng, Yuguang Huang

Abstract

Background: The optimal position for continuous adductor canal block (ACB) for analgesia after total knee anthroplasty (TKA) remians controversial, mainly due to high variability in the localization of the the adductor canal (AC). Latest neuroanatomy studies show that the nerve to vastus medialis plays an important role in innervating the anteromedial aspect of the knee and dives outside of the exact AC at the proximal end of the AC. Therefore, we hypothesized that continuous ACB at the proximal end of the exact AC could provide a better analgesic effect after TKA compared with that at the middle of the AC (which appeared to only block the saphenous nerve).

Methods: Sixty-two adult patients who were scheduled for a unilateral TKA were randomized to receive continuous ACB at the proximal end or middle of the AC. All patients received patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with sufentanil postoperatively. The primary outcome measure was cumulative sufentanil consumption within 24 h after the surgery, which was analyzed using Mann-Whitney U tests. P-values < 0.05 (two-sided) were considered statistically significant. The secondary outcomes included postoperative sufentanil consumption at other time points, pain at rest and during passive knee flexion, quadriceps motor strength, and other recovery related paramaters.

Results: Sixty patients eventually completed the study (30/group). The 24-h sufentanil consumption was 0.22 μg/kg (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.15-0.40 μg/kg) and 0.39 μg/kg (IQR: 0.23-0.52 μg/kg) in the proximal end and middle groups (P = 0.026), respectively. There were no significant inter-group differences in sufentanil consumption at other time points, pain at rest and during passive knee flexion, quadriceps motor strength, and other recovery related paramaters.

Conclusions: Continuous ACB at the proximal end of the AC has a better opioid-sparing effect without a significant influence on quadriceps motor strength compared to that at the middle of the AC after TKA. These findings indicates that a true ACB may not produce the effective analgesia, instead, the proximal end AC might be a more suitable block to alleviate pain after TKA.

Trial registration: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03942133 ; registration date: May 06, 2019; enrollment date: May 11, 2019).

Keywords: Adductor canal block; Analgesia; Opioid-sparing; Sufentanil; Total knee anthroplasty.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Ultrasound-guided proximal end adductor canal block (ACB) (A/a) and middle ACB (B/b) techniques. (A) Ultrasound probe position of short-axis scanning at the proximal end of the AC and needle orientation for proximal end ACB. (a) Short-axis ultrasound scan image at the proximal end of the AC. (B) Ultrasound probe position of long-axis scanning with the cranial end of the probe aligned with the proximal end of the AC and needle orientation for middle ACB. (b) Long-axis ultrasound scan image with the cranial end of the probe aligned with the proximal end of the AC (at the cranial side in the image). The purple arrow indicates the skin mark of the puncture point for proximal end ACB; the purple dotted line indicates the skin mark of the proximal end of the AC; the red asterisk indicates the endpoint target for the needle tip; the yellow asterisk indicates the alignment of the medial borders of the SM and ALM. ALM, adductor longus muscle; AMM, adductor magnus muscle; FA, femoral artery; FV, femoral venous; SM, sartorius muscle
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
CONSORT patient flowchart

References

    1. Fischer HB, Simanski CJ, Sharp C, Bonnet F, Camu F, Neugebauer EA, et al. A procedure-specific systematic review and consensus recommendations for postoperative analgesia following total knee arthroplasty. Anaesthesia. 2008;63:1105–1123. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05565.x.
    1. Andersen LØ, Husted H, Kristensen BB, Otte KS, Gaarn-Larsen L, Kehlet H. Analgesic efficacy of intracapsular and intra-articular local anaesthesia for knee arthroplasty. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:904–912. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06389.x.
    1. Gerbershagen HJ, Aduckathil S, van Wijck AJ, Peelen LM, Kalkman CJ, Meissner W. Pain intensity on the first day after surgery: a prospective cohort study comparing 179 surgical procedures. Anesthesiology. 2013;118:934–944. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31828866b3.
    1. Wang C, Chen Z, Ma X. Continuous adductor canal block is a better choice compared to single shot after primary total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg. 2019;72:16–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.10.012.
    1. Mariano ER, Kim TE, Wagner MJ, Funck N, Harrison TK, Walters T, et al. A randomized comparison of proximal and distal ultrasound-guided adductor canal catheter insertion sites for knee arthroplasty. J Ultrasound Med. 2014;33:1653–1662. doi: 10.7863/ultra.33.9.1653.
    1. Romano C, Lloyd A, Nair S, Wang JY, Viswanathan S, Vydyanathan A, et al. A randomized comparison of pain control and functional mobility between proximal and distal adductor canal blocks for total knee replacement. Anesth Essays Res. 2018;12:452–458. doi: 10.4103/aer.AER_17_18.
    1. Meier AW, Auyong DB, Yuan SC, Lin SE, Flaherty JM, Hanson NA. Comparison of continuous proximal versus distal adductor canal blocks for total knee arthroplasty. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018;43:36–42. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000692.
    1. Sztain JF, Khatibi B, Monahan AM, Said ET, Abramson WB, Gabriel RA, et al. Proximal versus distal continuous adductor canal blocks: does varying perineural catheter location influence analgesia? A randomized, subject-masked, controlled clinical trial. Anesth Analg. 2018;127:240–246. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003422.
    1. Hussain N, Ferreri TG, Prusick PJ, Banfield L, Long B, Prusick VR, et al. Adductor canal block versus femoral canal block for total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis: what does the evidence suggest? Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2016;41:314–320. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000376.
    1. Laurant DB, Peng P, Arango LG, Niazi AU, Chan VW, Agur A, et al. The nerves of the adductor canal and the innervation of the knee: an anatomic study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2016;41:321–327. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000389.
    1. Bendtsen TF, Moriggl B, Chan V, Børglum J. Basic topography of the saphenous nerve in the femoral triangle and the adductor canal. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2015;40:391–392. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000261.
    1. Wong WY, Bjørn S, Strid JM, Børglum J, Bendtsen TF. Defining the location of the adductor canal using ultrasound. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017;42:241–245. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000539.
    1. Bendtsen TF, Moriggl B, Chan V, Børglum J. The optimal analgesic block for total knee arthroplasty. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2016;41:711–719. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000485.
    1. Manickam B, Perlas A, Duggan E, Brull R, Chan VW, Ramlogan R. Feasibility and efficacy of ultrasound-guided block of the saphenous nerve in the adductor canal. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2009;34:578–580. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181bfbf84.
    1. Baccarani G, Zanotti G. The innervation of the skin on the antero-medial region of the knee. Ital J Orthop Traumatol. 1984;10:521–555.
    1. Andrikoula S, Tokis A, Vasiliadis HS, Georgoulis A. The extensor mechanism of the knee joint: an anatomical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14:214–220. doi: 10.1007/s00167-005-0680-3.
    1. Tubbs RS, Loukas M, Shoja MM, Apaydin N, Oakes WJ, Salter EG. Anatomy and potential clinical significance of the vastoadductor membrane. Surg Radiol Anat. 2007;29:569–573. doi: 10.1007/s00276-007-0230-4.
    1. Andersen HL, Andersen SK, Tranum-Jensen J. The spread of injectate during saphenous nerve block at the adductor canal: a cadaver study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2015;59:238–245. doi: 10.1111/aas.12451.
    1. Runge C, Moriggl B, Børglum J, Bendtsen TF. The spread of ultrasound-guided injectate from the adductor canal to the genicular branch of the posterior obturator nerve and the popliteal plexus: a cadaveric study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017;42:725–730. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000675.
    1. Johnston DF, Black ND, Cowden R, Turbitt L, Taylor S. Spread of dye injectate in the distal femoral triangle versus the distal adductor canal: a cadaveric study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019;44:39–45. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2018-000002.
    1. Kwofie MK, Shastri UD, Gadsden JC, Sinha SK, Abrams JH, Xu D, et al. The effects of ultrasound-guided adductor canal block versus femoral nerve lock on quadriceps strength and fall risk: a blinded, randomized trial of volunteers. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2013;38:321–325. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e318295df80.
    1. Koscielniak-Nielsen ZJ, Rasmussen H, Hesselbjerg L. Long-axis ultra- sound imaging of the nerves and advancement of perineural catheters under direct vision: a preliminary report of four cases. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2008;33:477–482. doi: 10.1097/00115550-200809000-00013.
    1. Compston A. Aids to the investigation of peripheral nerve injuries. Medical Research Council: nerve injuries research committee. His Majesty's stationery office: 1942; pp 48 (iii) and 74 figures and 7 diagrams; with aids to the examination of the peripheral nervous system. By Michael O’Brien for the Guarantors of Brain. Saunders Elsevier. 2010:[8] 64–94. Brain. 2010;133:2838–2844. doi: 10.1093/brain/awq270.
    1. Tran J, Chan VWS, Peng PWH, Agur AMR. Evaluation of the proximal adductor canal block injectate spread: a cadaveric study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2020;45:124–130. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2019-101091.
    1. Abdallah FW, Halpern SH, Aoyama K, Brull R. Will the real benefits of single-shot interscalene block please stand up? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesth Analg. 2015;120:1114–1129. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000688.
    1. Lavand’homme P. Rebound pain after regional anesthesia in the ambulatory patient. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2018;31:679–684. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000000651.
    1. Bendtsen TF, Moriggl B, Chan V, Pedersen EM, Børglum J. Redefining the adductor canal block. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2014;39:442–443. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000119.
    1. Anagnostopoulou S. Saphenous and infrapatellar nerves at the adductor canal: anatomy and implications in regional anesthesia. Orthopedics. 2016;39:e259–e262. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20160129-03.
    1. Jæger P, Zaric D, Fomsgaard JS, Hilsted KL, Bjerregaard J, Gyrn J, et al. Adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block for analgesia after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized, double-blind study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2013;38:526–532. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000015.
    1. Yeung TS, Wessel J, Stratford PW, MacDermid JC. The timed up and go test for use on an inpatient orthopaedic rehabilitation ward. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38:410–417. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2008.2657.
    1. Shumway-Cook A, Brauer S, Woollacott M. Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the timed up & amp; amp; go test. Phys Ther. 2000;80:896–903. doi: 10.1093/ptj/80.9.896.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren