Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30508936›Full record

Trial reportMedicine2018

A comparison of adductor canal block and femoral nerve block after total-knee arthroplasty regarding analgesic effect, effectiveness of early rehabilitation, and lateral knee pain relief in the early stage.

Zhen Tan, Pengde Kang, FuXing Pei, Bin Shen, ZongKe Zhou, Jing Yang

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A Bibliometric Analysis Using CiteSpace of Publications from 1999 to 2018 on Patient Rehabilitation After Total Knee Arthroplasty.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhen TanDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery.
Pengde KangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery.
FuXing PeiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery.
Bin ShenDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery.
ZongKe ZhouDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery.
Jing YangDepartment of Anesthesiology, West China School of Medicine/West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.
Sichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the analgesic effect on the lateral and overall knee and early rehabilitation between adductor canal block (ACB) and femoral nerve block (FNB) after total-knee arthroplasty.

methodTwo hundred patients randomly participated in the study and were divided into the ACB group and FNB group in a randomized manner. All patients received standardized anesthesia and analgesia upon hospitalization. Outcome evaluations included visual analog scale (VAS) scores at rest and during activity, quadriceps strength, range of motion (ROM), total opioid consumption and complication occurrence, sleep interruptions caused by pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and postoperative length of stay (PLOS) before discharge in all groups. In the 90-day postoperative follow-up, we also observed the acute deep periprosthetic joint infection, wound breakdown, readmission, reoperations, inpatient falls, ROM, and patient satisfaction score.

resultsThe lateral knee VAS scores are lower in the FNB group at rest and during activity (2-24 hours postoperatively) compared with those in the ACB group. However, the overall knee VAS score, total opioid consumption and complication occurrence, sleep interruptions caused by pain, and PONV are similar between the FNB and ACB groups. When evaluating early rehabilitation, the quadriceps strength in the ACB group is superior to that in the FNB group 24 hours postoperatively. At 24, 48, and 72 hours postoperatively, ROM in the ACB group is significantly better than that in the FNB group. Furthermore, the ACB group has a shorter PLOS (4.5 ± 0.60 days) than the FNB group (5.3 ± 0.7 days). However, patient satisfaction score, readmission rate, inpatient falls, acute deep periprosthetic joint infection, and wound breakdown are not statistically significantly different between the 2 groups.

conclusionThe ACB does not relieve lateral knee pain in the early stage but provides similar analgesic effect and better effectiveness of early rehabilitation compared with FNB in patients undergoing TKA.

Indexed as

Femoral NerveAgedAnalgesiaAnalgesics, OpioidArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscle StrengthNerve BlockPain MeasurementPostoperative CarePostoperative PainRandom AllocationAnalgesics, Opioid

Identifiers

PMID30508936
PMCPMC6283224
OpenAlexW2902096860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.