Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of nerve-stimulator-guide needle placement in the peripheral nerve blockade. Methods The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, OVID, VIP, CNKI and CBM were searched. The quality of the included studies was evaluated by three reviewers, and meta-analysis was performed. Results Twenty studies involving 1 287 participants related to needle placement in the peripheral nerve blockade were included. There were only 2 studies that described a detailed randomization method and allocation concealment and blinding, and the others were inadequate. Meta-analysis based on the included studies showed that: ① Absolute success ratio: nerve-stimulator-guide was higher than eliciting paraesthesia (OR= 4.05, 95%CI 2.57 to 6.36, Plt;0.00001) and anatomy localization (OR=30.3, 95%CI 1.73 to 532.74, P=0.02), but lower than ultrasound-guide-localization (OR=0.27, 95%CI 0.10 to 0.74, P=0.01). ② Onset time of the block: nerve-stimulator-guide was similar to eliciting paraesthesia (WMD= –1.70, 95%CI –?4.50 to 0.95, P=0.08), faster than arteriopalmus localization (WMD= 8.38, 95%CI 0.72 to 16.04, Plt;0.000 01), but slower than ultrasound-guide-localization (WMD= 8.38, 95%CI 0.72 to 16.04, P=0.04). ③ Ratio of complication associated to block: nerve-stimulator-guide was similar to eliciting paraesthesia (OR= 1.01, 95%CI 0.55 to 1.86, P=0.97), anatomy localization (WMD= 0.06, 95%CI 0.00 to 1.21, P=0.07) and arteriopalmus localization (WMD= 8.82, 95%CI 0.10 to 4.11, P=0.65), but higher than ultrasound-guide-localization (OR= 5.03, 95%CI 1.74 to 14.49, P=0.003). ④ Time to block: nerve-stimulator-guide was similar to eliciting paraesthesia (WMD=0.02, 95%CI –0.46 to 0.51, P=0.92), shorter than arteriopalmus localization (WMD= –4.00, 95%CI –5.58 to –2.42, Plt;0.000 01) and longer than ultrasound-guide-localization (WMD= 1.90, 95%CI 0.47 to 3.33, P=0.009). ⑤ Patient-accepted ratio: nerve-stimulator-guide was higher than eliciting paraesthesia (OR=2.32, 95%CI 1.02 to 5.30, P=0.05), and similar to arteriopalmus localization (OR=8.14, 95%CI 0.88 to 75.48, P=0.06). Conclusion Nerve-stimulator-guide location is a precise, effective and safe localization method. Due to moderate risk of selection bias and detection bias of included studies, the evidence is not b. Our results suggest that well-designed double-blind randomized controlled and larger-scale trials on the use of nerve stimulator in the peripheral nerve block are needed.
Objective To analyze the outcome of fast track surgery after intercostal nerve block (INB) during thoracoscopic resection of lung bullae. Methods We recuited 76 patients who accepted thoracoscopic resection of lung bullae from February 2013 to March 2015. They were randomly divided into two groups: an intercostal nerve block and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (INB+IPCA) group, in which 38 patients (30 males, 8 females, with a mean age of 23.63±4.10 years) received INB intraoperatively and IPCA postoperatively, and a postoperative intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IPCA) group, in which 38 patients (33 males, 5 females, with a mean age of 24.93±6.34 years) only received IPCA postoperatively. Their general clinical data and the postoperative pain visual analogue scale (VAS) were recorded. Analgesia-associated side effects, rate of the pulmonary infection were observed. Expenses associated with analgesia during hospital were calculated. Results The score of VAS, the incidence of nausea and vomiting, fatigue and other side effects, pulmonary atelectasis and the infection rate in the INB+IPCA group were significantly lower than those in the IPCA group. Postoperative use of analgesic drugs was significantly less than that in the IPCA group. Medical expenses did not significantly increase. Conclusion INB+IPCA is beneficial for fast track surgery after thoracoscopic resection of lung bullae.
ObjectiveTo study the analgesia and rehabilitation effect of femoral nerve block after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). MethodsDuring June to September 2014, 62 patients who were scheduled to undergo ACLR were randomly divided into two groups:femoral nerve block group (n=31) and control group (n=31). All the patients were given celecoxib 200 mg (twice per day) three days before surgery. Patients in the femoral nerve block group were given a single-injection femoral nerve block (SFNB) half an hour before surgery (ropivacaine 0.75%, 30 mL), Both of the two groups underwent ice therapy after surgery. The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, knee joint range of motion, the muscle strength of quadriceps femoris, the side effects, complications and infection rate were recorded after the operation. ResultsThe VAS scores were significantly lower in the femoral nerve block group within 2 hours to 7 days after surgery (P<0.05), and the use of morphine was less than the control group in all the time points with statistical significance (P<0.05). The muscle strength of quadriceps femoris was significantly weaker in the femoral nerve block group than the control group in the first 12 hours (P<0.05). The side effects and infection rate between the two group had no significant difference (P>0.05). ConclusionThe femoral nerve block in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction before surgery has a good effect on postoperative analgesia and rehabilitation, which is worth popularizing and applying.
ObjectiveTo compare postoperative analgesic efficacy and motor function recovery between ultrasound guided adductor canal block (ACB) and Femoral nerve block (FNB) in patients after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). MethodsFrom March to April 2014, 40 patients chosen to receive TKA under general anesthesia were randomly allocated to FNB group and ACB group with 20 in each group. Opioids consumption during and after operation, pain score in rest and movement, the force of quadriceps femoris, activity of knee and complications after surgery were recorded. ResultsNo differences were found in opioids consumption during and after operation, pain score in rest and movement after operation. Patients of ACB group were superior to those of FNB group in motor function recovery. At hour 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 after operation, the force of quadriceps femoris was higher in patients of ACB group than those of FNB group (P<0.05). Activity of knee was higher in patients of ACB group than those of FNB group postoperatively. ConclusionACB and FNB have equal postoperative analgesic effect for TKA patients. But ACB has less influence on the force of quadriceps femoris than FNB. Therefore, patients of ACB group are superior to those of FNB group in motor function recovery, showing better activity of knee and early time of first straight leg raising.
ObjectiveTo summarize the early postoperative pain management strategies for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), and to select a reasonable and effective pain management plan to promote functional rehabilitation after ACLR. MethodsThe literature about the early postoperative pain management strategies of ACLR both domestically and internationally in recent years was extensiverly reviewed, and the effects of improving postoperative pain were reviewed. ResultsCurrently, physical therapy and oral medication have advantages such as economy and simplicity, but the effect of improving postoperative pain is not satisfactory, often requires a combination of intravenous injection or intravenous pump, which is also a common way to relieve pain. However, in order to meet the analgesic needs of patients, the amount of analgesic drugs used is often large, which increases the incidence of various adverse reactions. Local infiltration analgesia (LIA), including periarticular or intra-articular injection of drugs, can significantly improve the early postoperative pain of ACLR, and achieve similar postoperative effectiveness as nerve block. LIA can be used as an analgesic technique instead of nerve block, and avoid the corresponding weakness of innervated muscles caused by nerve block, which increases the risk of postoperative falls. Many studies have confirmed that LIA can alleviate postoperative early pain in ACLR, especially the analgesic effects of periarticular injection are more satisfactory. It can also avoid the risk of cartilage damage caused by intra-articular injection. However, the postoperative analgesic effect and timeliness still need to be improved. It is possible to consider combining multimodal mixed drug LIA (combined with intra-articular and periarticular) with other pain intervention methods to exert a synergistic effect, in order to avoid the side effects and risks brought by single drugs or single administration route. LIA is expected to become one of the most common methods for relieving postoperative early pain in ACLR. ConclusionEarly pain after arthroscopic ACLR still affects the further functional activities of patients, and all kinds of analgesic methods can achieve certain effectiveness, but there is no unified standard at present, and the advantages and disadvantages of various analgesic methods need further research.
Objective To overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses of efficacy of FNB used as a postoperative analgesic technique among patients undergoing TKR. Methods We electronically searched databases including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP from inception to July, 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. AMSTAR tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. The primary outcome was pain scores and the consumption of opoid medicine to evaluate the effectiveness of FNB. Results A total of 16 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included, involving the FNBvs. LIA, PMDI, EA, PCA and ACB, respectively. The results of quality assessment indicated medium scores with 3 to 9 scores. The overviews’ results showed that: at rest, FNB was not superior to LIA at 6h after TKR; it was superior to PMDI at 12h after TKR; it was also superior to PCA and LIA, but not superior to ACB at 24h after TKR. On movement, FNB was superior to PCA and LIA at 24h after TKR; it was also superior to PCA at 48h after TKR. As to the consumption of opoid medicine, the consumption in FNB group was more than LIA group at 12h after TKR. In addition, the consumption in FNB group was less than PCA and LIA at 24h after TKR, and it was also less than PCA and ACB at 48h. The satisfaction of patients who received FNB was better than ACB, EA and PCA. Conclusion The current overview shows that FNB is more effective than PCA and LIA, the patients’ satisfaction is better. Due to the limitations of the quantity and quality of included studies, the above conclusions are needed to be verified by more studies.
Objectives To overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses of safety of femoral nerve block (FNB) used as a postoperative analgesic technique in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods We searched databases including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP from inception to July, 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and used AMSTAR to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. The major indexes used to evaluate the safety of FNB were the incidence rates of symptoms including nausea, vomiting, sedation, retention of urine, dizziness, pruritus, hypotension, falls, nenous thromboembolism and deep infection. Results A total of 12 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included.They assessed the safety of FNB compared with local infiltration analgesia (LIA), periarticular multimodal drug injection (PMDI), epidural analgesia (EA), patient-controlled intravenous analgesia of opioids (PCA) and adductor canal block (ACB), respectively. The methodological quality of included studies were medium, with the scores between 3 to 10. The results of overview indicated that: FNB had lower incidence rates of nausea and vomiting compared with EA and PCA, but had higher than ACB. FNB had lower incidence rates of sedation and retention of urine compared with EA and PCA. FNB had lower incidence rates of dizziness compared with EA and PCA, and lower incidence rate of hypotension compared with EA. Conclusion Current evidence suggests that FNB is safer than EA and PCA. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusions are needed to be verified by more high-quality studies.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effect and safety of subgluteal approach continous sciatic nerve block with 0.2% ropivacaine for postoperative analgesia in calcaneal fracture patients. MethodsForty calcaneal fracture patients treated from May 2012 to January 2013 were randomly assigned to two groups:20 patients in continuous sciatic nerve block group (group CSB) and 20 patients in self-controlled intravenous analgesia group (group PCIA).Patients in group CSB were given subgluteal approach continuous sciatic nerve block,and PCA pump was connected to give 0.2% ropivacaine via continuous nerve block catheter continuously for analgesia.Patients in group PCIA were given PCA pump directly for self-controlled intravenous analgesia.The movement/rest VAS scores and Ramsay scores at 2,8,24,48 hours after surgery,the dose of other analgesia drugs after surgery,the satisfaction of patients and surgeons,and side effects were recorded. ResultsThe movement and rest visual analogue scale (VSA) scores and the dose of analgesia drugs in group CSB were significantly lower than group PCIA at all time points (P<0.05).The satisfaction of patients and surgeons in group CSB was higher than group PCIA (P<0.05). ConclusionCompared with self-controlled intravenous analgesia,subgluteal approach continuous sciatic nerve block with 0.2% ropivacaine can provide better and safer postoperative analgesia for calcaneal fracture patients.
Objective To compare the effect of sciatic nerve block (SNB) combined with continuted femoral nerve block (FNB) or continuted adductor canal block (ACB) on pain and motor function after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods A total of 60 patients with TKA-treated osteoarthritis of the knee who met the selection criteria were enrolled between November 2020 and February 2021 and randomised allocated into the study group (SNB combined with continuted ACB) and the control group (SNB combined with continuted FNB), with 30 cases in each group. There was no significant difference in gender, age, body mass, height, body mass index, preoperative Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, femoral tibial angle, and medial proximal tibial angle between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, the initial time to the ground, the initial walking distance, and the postoperative hospital stay were recorded. At 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours after operation, the numerical rating scale (NRS) score was used to evaluate the rest pain around the knee joint, the quadriceps femoris muscle strength was evaluated by the freehand muscle strength method, and the knee flexion and extension angles were measured. Results There was no significant difference in the operation time and initial walking distance between the two groups (P>0.05); the initial time to the ground and postoperative hospital stay of the study group were significantly shorter than those of the control group (P<0.05). Except for the 48-hour postoperative NRS score of the study group, which was significantly lower than that of the control group (P<0.05), there was no significant difference in the NRS scores between the two groups at the remaining time points (P>0.05). The quadriceps femoris muscle strength from 4 to 24 hours postoperatively and the knee extension angle from 2 to 6 hours postoperatively of the study group were significantly better than those of the control group (P<0.05); the differences in the quadriceps femoris muscle strength and knee extension and flexion angles between the two groups at the remaining time points were not significant (P>0.05). Conclusion SNB combined with either continuted ACB or continuted FNB can effectively relieve pain in patients after TKA, and compared with combined continuted FNB, combined continuted ACB has less effect on quadriceps femoris muscle strength, and patients have better recovery of knee flexion and extension mobility.
Objective To compare the anesthetic effects of traditional digital block with single-injection digital block in digital injury patients for subcutaneous digital blocks. Methods Patients with one or two digits injured were randomized to the traditional digital block group and single-injection digital block group. All of the blocks were conducted by one investigator. The patients and outcome assessor were blinded to the treatment allocation. Both of the per-protocol-population (PP) analysis and the intention-to-treatment (ITT) analysis were performed to compare the two block techniques in terms of the pain during infiltration, the onset time of anesthesia and the failure rate of anesthesia. Results A total of 93 patients (109 digits) were included with 51 (61 digits) in the traditional block group and 42 (48 digits) in the single-injection block group.Two patients (3 digits) dropped out. Both of the PP analysis and ITT analysis showed that no significant difference between the two groups were detected in terms of the pain during infiltration, the onset time of anesthesia and the failure rate of anesthesia (P﹥0.05). Conclusions The subcutaneous single-injection digital block is as effective as the traditional digital block, but is much easier to perform. This technique is indicated for the digital anesthesia of palmar aspect distal to the proximal digital crease and dorsal aspect of the distal and middle phalanxes.