ArticleMedicine2021
The efficacy and safety of local infiltration analgesia vs femoral nerve block after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A retrospective trial protocol.
Article in Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and analgesic effect of local infiltration analgesia and femoral nerve block after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeveral previous trials have attempted to compare the efficacy of femoral nerve block (FNB) and local infiltrative analgesia (LIA) for patients received anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, but reached inconsistent conclusions. The primary purpose of this present research was to compare the FNB and LIA in the reconstruction of ACL.
methodsThis investigation was conducted and then reported on the basis of Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in the Epidemiology checklist. From our registry database, we retrospectively determined 688 patients who received the primary reconstruction of ACL from 2016 to 2019 at our academic institutions. This current retrospective cohort study was approved through the institutional review committee at our hospital. Inclusion criteria contained the primary or autograft bone-patellar tendine-bone reconstruction of ACL in the patients over 16 years of age. Patients in the LIA group underwent intraoperative infiltration at the harvested site after tendon harvest, with use of 2 mg/mL of ropivacaine 20 mL and 5 mg/mL of epinephrine, respectively. After the reconstruction of ACL, 5 Lg/mL of epinephrine, and 20 mL of ropivacaine (2 mg/mL) were injected at the site of surgical trauma. The patient in FNB group was given 40 mL of ropivacaine (2 mg/mL), and the ropivacaine was injected into femoral nerve sheath at femoral triangle level. The primary outcome was the consumption of morphine 24 h after the operation. And the secondary results involved the complications, functional results, and the scores of pain.
resultsIt is assumed that the efficacy of LIA in the early postoperative pain is no less than that of FNB. For our study, the major limitation is the lack of randomization. Nevertheless, these data were prospectively harvested, with high response rate of patient.
trial registrationThis study protocol was registered in Research Registry (researchregistry6277).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.