ArticleCureus2024
Adductor Canal Block Versus Femoral Nerve Block for Postoperative Pain Management in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective Interventional Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background A common knee joint disorder is injury to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), which often requires surgery. Proper pain control after the surgery facilitates fast recovery and prevents chronic pain. To provide analgesia for knee procedures, the use of opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications, and regional techniques are commonly employed. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of adductor canal block (ACB) and femoral nerve block (FNB) for postoperative pain management after anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACLRs). Methodology This prospective interventional study included 30 participants scheduled for patellar graft ACLR. They were assigned into groups, i.e., ACB and FNB, with 15 patients each. The evaluation occurred one day before the operation, and all surgical procedures were performed using spinal anesthesia. During the postoperative period, a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) was utilized to quantify pain intensity at the end of the surgery and at various intervals after the surgery. Patients with a VAS score greater than 4 received either FNB or ACB using bupivacaine 0.125%. Duration of analgesia time, power of quadriceps muscle, and neurologic complications were documented. Results No statistically significant value was observed in the mean duration of analgesia between the patients in ACB (348.33 minutes) and the patients in FNB (363.06 minutes). No motor block was observed in 12 patients who received ACB, while only four patients had a motor-sparing effect among those who received FNB. No neurological adverse effects were observed in the study participants. Conclusions ACB provides an equal duration of analgesia similar to FNB, and ACB significantly spares motor strength and maintains higher quadriceps power than FNB.
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.