- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT03704376
Clinical Comparison of Femoral Nerve Versus Adductor Canal Block Following Anterior Ligament Reconstruction (FNB vs ACB)
September 27, 2021 updated by: Lane Bailey, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston
Clinical Outcome Following Arthroscopic Knee Surgery (COFAKS)-Addendum
This study will examine the potential differences between femoral nerve blockade (FNB) and adductor canal blockade (ACB) for pain control and quadriceps muscle activation for patients following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.
Study Overview
Status
Completed
Conditions
Detailed Description
Adequate pain control following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL) often requires a regional nerve block.
The femoral nerve block (FNB) has been traditionally employed.
More recently, ultrasound application to regional nerve blocks allows for the use of alternatives such as the adductor canal block following ACL reconstruction.
In 2009, Manickam et al. were the first to describe the ultrasound guided adductor canal technique for the purposes of knee joint analgesia.
Unlike other traditional techniques that seek to cause a sensory as well as a motor blockade, the adductor canal block attempts to spare the motor block of the neighboring distributions in an attempt to offer selective analgesia and strength preservation.
Chisholm et al demonstrated the adductor canal block provides similar and adequate postoperative analgesia when compared to the FNB, following arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with patellar tendon autograft.
Their study focused on analgesia and did not evaluate quadriceps function or impact on rehabilitation.
Sharma et al drew the first association between femoral nerve blocks and increased fall risk due to muscle weakness in total knee arthroplasty population.
A randomized, blinded study to compare quadriceps strength following adductor canal versus FNB was performed by Kwofie et al.
They showed that compared with FNB, adductor canal block results in significant quadriceps motor sparing and significantly preserved balance.
These studies focused on acute muscle weakness after regional anesthesia and its relation to safety.
Quadriceps function is very important in rehabilitation of ACL reconstruction.
Luo et al demonstrated long term deficits related to FNB.
They demonstrated that patients treated with FNB after ACL reconstruction had significant isokinetic deficits in knee extension and flexion strength at 6 months when compared with patients who did not receive a nerve block.
Patients without a block were 4 times more likely to meet criteria for clearance to return to sports at 6 months.
In addition, Krych et al found significantly inferior quadriceps strength and function at 6 months in FNB group.
Based on the available literature, we aim to compare femoral nerve versus adductor canal block in regards to pain control and muscle strength in ACL reconstruction patients until return to sport.
Study Type
Interventional
Enrollment (Actual)
125
Phase
- Phase 4
Contacts and Locations
This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.
Study Locations
-
-
Texas
-
Houston, Texas, United States, 77030
- The University of Texas Health Science Center-Houston
-
-
Participation Criteria
Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
14 years to 28 years (Child, Adult)
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Genders Eligible for Study
All
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Males & Females ages 16-30 yrs
- Undergoing ACL reconstruction by Co-Investigator (Walter Lowe)
- Receiving peri-operative FNB or ACB
Exclusion Criteria:
- Not enrolled within the COFAKS study
- Receiving intrathecal nerve blockade or no blockade
Study Plan
This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Single
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
---|---|
Active Comparator: Femoral Nerve Blockade
Ultrasound guided FNB (30 ml of 0.2% ropivacaine with 100 mcg clonidine using a 22-gauge 40 mm ProBloc II insulated needle; Kimberly-Clark, Roswell, Georgia) below the inguinal ligament using a high-frequency linear ultrasound transducer (4-12 Hz; Mindray M7; Mindray North America, Mahwah, NJ) with stimulator confirmation.
|
|
Active Comparator: Adductor Canal Blockade
Ultrasound guided ACB (15 ml of 0.2% ropivacaine with 100 mcg clonidine using a 22-gauge 40 mm ProBloc II insulated needle; Kimberly-Clark, Roswell, Georgia) at the mid-thigh using a high-frequency linear ultrasound transducer (4-12 Hz; Mindray M7; Mindray North America, Mahwah, NJ).
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Quadriceps Muscle Activation as Assessed by Surface Electromyography (sEMG)
Time Frame: Post-operative day 1
|
Quadriceps muscle activation was examined using surface electromyography (sEMG) of the vastus medialis oblique muscle.
Peak sEMG activity was recorded in microvolts (uV) on the surgical and contralateral limbs while performing five maximal effort isometric contractions in full knee extension--the reported values are equal to the quadriceps sEMG in uV of the contralateral limb minus the quadriceps sEMG in uV of the surgical limb.
|
Post-operative day 1
|
Quadriceps Muscle Activation as Assessed by Surface Electromyography (EMG)
Time Frame: Post-operative day 14
|
Quadriceps muscle activation was examined using surface electromyography (sEMG) of the vastus medialis oblique muscle.
Peak sEMG activity was recorded in microvolts (uV) on the surgical and contralateral limbs while performing five maximal effort isometric contractions in full knee extension--the reported values are equal to the quadriceps sEMG in uV of the contralateral limb minus the quadriceps sEMG in uV of the surgical limb.
|
Post-operative day 14
|
Quadriceps Muscle Activation as Assessed by Surface Electromyography (EMG)
Time Frame: 4 weeks post operative
|
Quadriceps muscle activation was examined using surface electromyography (sEMG) of the vastus medialis oblique muscle.
Peak sEMG activity was recorded in microvolts (uV) on the surgical and contralateral limbs while performing five maximal effort isometric contractions in full knee extension--the reported values are equal to the quadriceps sEMG in uV of the contralateral limb minus the quadriceps sEMG in uV of the surgical limb.
|
4 weeks post operative
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Number of Successful Repetitions With Straight Leg Raise Test
Time Frame: Post-operative day 1
|
The straight leg raise assessment was performed in a standardized long-sitting position with well-knee flexed to 90 degrees.
Patients were asked to complete 30 repetitions of straight leg raises with a small bolster supporting the heel using the following criteria; (1) perform with no visible quad lag (2) reach the height of the opposite tibial tubercle and (3) maintain a controlled rate of 30 hertz for the ascending and descending phases.
The examination was only performed on the surgical limb and the absolute number of successful repetitions is reported.
|
Post-operative day 1
|
Number of Successful Repetitions With Straight Leg Raise Test
Time Frame: Post-operative day 14
|
The straight leg raise assessment was performed in a standardized long-sitting position with well-knee flexed to 90 degrees.
Patients were asked to complete 30 repetitions of straight leg raises with a small bolster supporting the heel using the following criteria; (1) perform with no visible quad lag (2) reach the height of the opposite tibial tubercle and (3) maintain a controlled rate of 30 hertz for the ascending and descending phases.
The examination was only performed on the surgical limb and the absolute number of successful repetitions is reported.
|
Post-operative day 14
|
Number of Successful Repetitions With Straight Leg Raise Test
Time Frame: 4 weeks post operative
|
The straight leg raise assessment was performed in a standardized long-sitting position with well-knee flexed to 90 degrees.
Patients were asked to complete 30 repetitions of straight leg raises with a small bolster supporting the heel using the following criteria; (1) perform with no visible quad lag (2) reach the height of the opposite tibial tubercle and (3) maintain a controlled rate of 30 hertz for the ascending and descending phases.
The examination was only performed on the surgical limb and the absolute number of successful repetitions is reported.
|
4 weeks post operative
|
Postoperative Pain Control as Assessed by a Numeric Pain Rating Scale
Time Frame: 1 hr post surgery
|
The items are scored on a visual analogical scale from 0-10, 0 being the better outcome.
|
1 hr post surgery
|
Postoperative Pain Control as Assessed by a Numeric Pain Rating Scale
Time Frame: 2 hr post surgery
|
The items are scored on a visual analogical scale from 0-10, with 0 being the better outcome.
|
2 hr post surgery
|
Postoperative Pain Control as Assessed by a Numeric Pain Rating Scale
Time Frame: 3 hr post surgery
|
The items are scored on a visual analogical scale from 0-10, with 0 being the better
|
3 hr post surgery
|
Postoperative Pain Control as Assessed by a Numeric Pain Rating Scale
Time Frame: 4 hr post surgery
|
The items are scored on a visual analogical scale from 0-10, with 0 being the better outcome.
|
4 hr post surgery
|
Postoperative Pain Control as Assessed by a Numeric Pain Rating Scale
Time Frame: 5 hr post surgery
|
The items are scored on a visual analogical scale from 0-10, with 0 being the better outcome.
|
5 hr post surgery
|
Postoperative Pain Control as Assessed by a Numeric Pain Rating Scale
Time Frame: 6 hr post surgery
|
The items are scored on a visual analogical scale from 0-10, with 0 being the better outcome.
|
6 hr post surgery
|
Postoperative Pain Control as Assessed by a Numeric Pain Rating Scale
Time Frame: 7 hr post surgery
|
The items are scored on a visual analogical scale from 0-10, with 0 being the better outcome.
|
7 hr post surgery
|
Postoperative Pain Control as Assessed by a Numeric Pain Rating Scale
Time Frame: 8 hr post surgery
|
The items are scored on a visual analogical scale from 0-10, with 0 being the better outcome.
|
8 hr post surgery
|
Postoperative Pain Control as Assessed by a Numeric Pain Rating Scale
Time Frame: 9 hr post surgery
|
The items are scored on a visual analogical scale from 0-10, with 0 being the better outcome.
|
9 hr post surgery
|
Postoperative Pain Control as Assessed by a Numeric Pain Rating Scale
Time Frame: 10 hr post surgery
|
The items are scored on a visual analogical scale from 0-10, with 0 being the better outcome.
|
10 hr post surgery
|
Postoperative Pain Control as Assessed by a Numeric Pain Rating Scale
Time Frame: 11 hr post surgery
|
The items are scored on a visual analogical scale from 0-10, with 0 being the better outcome.
|
11 hr post surgery
|
Postoperative Pain Control as Assessed by a Numeric Pain Rating Scale
Time Frame: 12 hr post surgery
|
The items are scored on a visual analogical scale from 0-10, with 0 being the better outcome.
|
12 hr post surgery
|
Postoperative Pain Control as Assessed by a Numeric Pain Rating Scale
Time Frame: Postoperative physicians visit
|
The items are scored on a visual analogical scale from 0-10, with 0 being the better
|
Postoperative physicians visit
|
Narcotics Use as Assessed by Morphine Equivalents Consumed
Time Frame: Entire post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) visit post surgery, PACU range 1 hr to 12 hrs post surgery
|
morphine equivalents consumed during the entire post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) visit post surgery will be obtained from the All-scripts electronic medical record (EMR) system.
|
Entire post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) visit post surgery, PACU range 1 hr to 12 hrs post surgery
|
Collaborators and Investigators
This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.
Collaborators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Lane Bailey, PhD, PT, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston
Publications and helpful links
The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.
General Publications
- Bailey L, Weldon M, Kleihege J, Lauck K, Syed M, Mascarenhas R, Lowe WR. Platelet-Rich Plasma Augmentation of Meniscal Repair in the Setting of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2021 Oct;49(12):3287-3292. doi: 10.1177/03635465211036471. Epub 2021 Sep 3.
- Worsham J, Lowe WR, Copa D, Williams S, Kleihege J, Lauck K, Mascarenhas R, Bailey L. Subsequent Surgery for Loss of Motion After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Does Not Influence Function at 2 Years: A Matched Case-Control Analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2019 Sep;47(11):2550-2556. doi: 10.1177/0363546519863347. Epub 2019 Jul 26.
- Bailey L, Griffin J, Elliott M, Wu J, Papavasiliou T, Harner C, Lowe W. Adductor Canal Nerve Versus Femoral Nerve Blockade for Pain Control and Quadriceps Function Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Patellar Tendon Autograft: A Prospective Randomized Trial. Arthroscopy. 2019 Mar;35(3):921-929. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.10.149. Epub 2019 Feb 4.
Study record dates
These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
February 1, 2016
Primary Completion (Actual)
November 16, 2017
Study Completion (Actual)
November 16, 2017
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
September 27, 2018
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
October 11, 2018
First Posted (Actual)
October 12, 2018
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
October 21, 2021
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
September 27, 2021
Last Verified
September 1, 2021
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
- Wounds and Injuries
- Leg Injuries
- Knee Injuries
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries
- Physiological Effects of Drugs
- Adrenergic Agents
- Neurotransmitter Agents
- Molecular Mechanisms of Pharmacological Action
- Antihypertensive Agents
- Central Nervous System Depressants
- Autonomic Agents
- Peripheral Nervous System Agents
- Analgesics
- Sensory System Agents
- Anesthetics
- Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists
- Adrenergic alpha-Agonists
- Adrenergic Agonists
- Anesthetics, Local
- Sympatholytics
- Ropivacaine
- Clonidine
Other Study ID Numbers
- HSC-MH-14-0734 (addendum)
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
No
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Yes
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
No
product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.
No
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury
-
Bezirkskrankenhaus SchwazNot yet recruitingAnterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture | Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction | Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuryAustria
-
eMKa MED Medical CenterWroclaw Medical UniversityRecruitingAnterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries | Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture | Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear | Knee Injuries | Knee Ligament InjuryPoland
-
University of WashingtonCompletedAnterior Cruciate Ligament Injury | ACL Injury | ACL - Anterior Cruciate Ligament RuptureUnited States
-
eMKa MED Medical CenterWroclaw Medical UniversityRecruitingAnterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries | Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture | Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear | Knee Injuries | Knee Ligament InjuryPoland
-
University of California, San FranciscoArthritis FoundationCompletedAcute Injury of Anterior Cruciate LigamentUnited States
-
Miach OrthopaedicsActive, not recruitingAnterior Cruciate Ligament Tear | Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuryUnited States
-
Rush University Medical CenterEnrolling by invitationAnterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture | Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuryUnited States
-
Miach OrthopaedicsActive, not recruitingAnterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture | Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuryUnited States
-
Lynn Snyder-MacklerCompletedAcute Injury of Anterior Cruciate LigamentUnited States
-
Universidad de GranadaCompletedAcute Injury of Anterior Cruciate LigamentSpain
Clinical Trials on 30 ml of 0.2% ropivacaine
-
Maisonneuve-Rosemont HospitalWithdrawnComplex Regional Pain Syndromes
-
Baylor College of MedicineWithdrawn
-
University Health Network, TorontoUnknownPIB Versus CI Through a Popliteal Sciatic Nerve Catheter for Analgesia Following Major Ankle SurgeryPain, PostoperativeCanada
-
Yonsei UniversityCompletedPediatric Surgical Patients | Preemptive Epidural AnalgesiaKorea, Republic of
-
ASST Gaetano Pini-CTOCompletedInjury of Anterior Cruciate LigamentItaly
-
Hvidovre University HospitalLundbeck FoundationCompleted
-
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire DijonCompleted
-
Nordsjaellands HospitalInnovation Fund DenmarkCompletedPostoperative PainDenmark
-
Boston Children's HospitalActive, not recruitingPain, Postoperative | Hip Dysplasia | Regional AnesthesiaUnited States
-
Nordsjaellands HospitalCompletedPostoperative PainDenmark