ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024
Local Infiltration Analgesia Versus Adductor Canal Block for Managing Pain After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Safety of Liposomal Bupivacaine in Direct Anterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Observational
- Is there a benefit to adding dexamethasone to levobupivacaine in ultrasound-guided adductor canal block following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Adductor canal block (ACB) and local infiltration analgesia (LIA) are frequently used to manage pain in patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Purpose: To compare the difference in pain scores and opioid consumption between ACB and LIA for ancillary pain management in patients after ACLR. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies that compared pain scores at 2, 6, 12, or 24 hours after ACLR or provided information on 24-hour opioid consumption were included. Of 240 publications initially screened by abstract and title, 4 studies were included, and data related to participant characteristics, anesthetic technique, and pain-related outcomes were extracted. The standardized mean difference (MD) in pain scores and morphine milligram equivalents consumed in 24 hours was compared using a random-effects model. Results: In all studies, ropivacaine was the primary anesthetic used for LIA and ACB, with 1 study also employing bupivacaine as an alternative. The difference in pain scores between LIA and ACB was not significant at 2 hours (MD, 0.04 [95% CI, -0.22 to 0.29]; Conclusion: From this review, the authors suggest considering LIA over ACB because of its potential to offer comparable pain relief and opioid consumption while being less time intensive. However, the study results should be interpreted with caution, given the limited number of studies included.
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.