Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36448721›Full record

Trial reportActa orthopaedica2022

Efficacy of adding an interspace block to the posterior knee for perioperative pain in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.

Swist Chatmaitri, Suwimon Tangwiwat, Pathom Halilamien, Pakpoom Ruangsomboon, Chaturong Pornrattanamaneewong, Keerati Chareancholvanich, Rapeepat Narkbunnam

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Acta orthopaedica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Swist ChatmaitriDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok.
Suwimon TangwiwatDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pathom HalilamienDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pakpoom RuangsomboonDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok.
Chaturong PornrattanamaneewongDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok.
Keerati ChareancholvanichDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok.
Rapeepat NarkbunnamDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok. mai_parma@hotmail.com.
Siriraj Hospital · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe interspace between the popliteal artery and the capsule of the posterior knee (IPACK) block is a novel anesthetic technique for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Our objective was to compare the effect of IPACK and adductor canal block (ACB) and periarticular injection (PAI), relative to ACB and PAI only, from baseline to postoperative day 3, in patients undergoing unilateral primary TKA. PATIENTS AND

methodsThis was a single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Adults over the age of 50 who were scheduled for unilateral primary TKA were enrolled. They were randomly assigned to ACB and PAI block (control group), or ACB, PAI, and IPACK block (IPACK group). The primary outcome was mean pain at rest during 24-48 hours post-operation using a numerical rating scale (0-10). We also investigated opioid use and ambulation pain.

results89 patients were evaluated, 45 from the control group and 44 from the IPACK group. Despite slightly higher mean pain score at rest in the control group, no statistically significant difference was found during 0-24 hours (0.13; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.46), 24-48 hours (0.42; CI -0.06 to 0.89), and 48-72 hours (0.35; CI 0.00 to 0.69) postoperatively as well as in maximum pain scores at rest. Neither pain during ambulation nor the number of opioids used differed between the trial groups at any given time point.

conclusionThe addition of the IPACK block to ACB and PAI did not reduce postoperative pain intensity or opioid usage. Therefore, IPACK block may not offer any benefit for pain management in patients undergoing unilateral primary TKA who are already receiving ACB and PAI.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeAdultAnalgesics, OpioidHumansKnee JointLower ExtremityPostoperative PainAnalgesics, Opioid

Identifiers

PMID36448721
PMCPMC9710249
OpenAlexW4311012015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.