Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40380131›Full record

Observational studyBMC anesthesiology2025

Comparative analysis of adductor canal block combined with iPACK block versus femoral combined with sciatic nerve blocks: a propensity score matched study.

Chao-Hsien Sung, Jen-Hao Liu, Chi-Feng Hung, Chun-Hsien Fu

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06521619 (Analysis of Postoperative Analgesic Effect and Complications Among Different Approaches of Nerve Block for Total Knee Replacement Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06521619 completednot on this map

Analysis of Postoperative Analgesic Effect and Complications Among Different Approaches of Nerve Block for Total Knee Replacement Surgery

TypeobservationalSponsorFu Jen Catholic University HospitalRan2024 to 2024Enrolled126ConditionsPain, Total Knee Replacement, Motor FunctionArmsFemoral and sciatic nerve blocks
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. 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

4 authors.

Chao-Hsien SungDivision of Anesthesiology, Fu Jen Catholic University Hospital, Fu Jen Catholic University, No.69, Guizi Rd., Taishan Dist, New Taipei City, 24352, Taiwan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0461-2050
Jen-Hao LiuDivision of Anesthesiology, Fu Jen Catholic University Hospital, Fu Jen Catholic University, No.69, Guizi Rd., Taishan Dist, New Taipei City, 24352, Taiwan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6421-9568
Chi-Feng HungSchool of Medicine, Fu Jen Catholic University, New Taipei City, Taiwan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3478-5451
Chun-Hsien FuDivision of Anesthesiology, Fu Jen Catholic University Hospital, Fu Jen Catholic University, No.69, Guizi Rd., Taishan Dist, New Taipei City, 24352, Taiwan. jimmy6291991@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2007-8203

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNerve blocks are effective in reducing postoperative opioid use and enhancing rehabilitation following total knee arthroplasty. However, few studies compare the analgesic efficacy and functional recovery of adductor canal block (ACB) combined with infiltration between the popliteal artery and the capsule of the knee (iPACK) versus sciatic and femoral nerve blocks (S + F). This study hypothesized that ACB combined with iPACK (A + I) provides comparable analgesia to S + F with superior motor recovery.

methodsData were obtained from a prospectively maintained acute pain service database. After exclusion criteria were applied, 126 patients were analyzed. Propensity-score matching balanced baseline characteristics between the A + I and S + F groups. Numeric rating scale (NRS) scores at different time points were primary outcome. Motor function analysis, including the motor blockade, maximum flexion angle and time to ambulation were secondary outcomes.

resultsAfter propensity score matching, patients in the A + I group reported significantly lower NRS pain scores in the post-anesthetic care unit (1.00 ± 0.72 vs. 1.52 ± 1.34; P = 0.026) and on postoperative day 1 at rest (0.66 ± 0.71 vs. 1.07 ± 0.95; P = 0.025) and during movement (1.75 ± 0.75 vs. 2.43 ± 1.19; P = 0.002). Movement-associated pain on postoperative day 2 was also lower in the A + I group (1.45 ± 0.66 vs. 2.34 ± 0.91; P < 0.001). The A + I group exhibited significantly less motor blockade (P < 0.001) and achieved earlier ambulation (1551.75 ± 379.98 vs. 2031.95 ± 764.77 min; P < 0.001).

conclusionsThe A + I regimen demonstrated superior analgesic efficacy, reduced motor blockade, and earlier ambulation compared to S + F in TKA patients. These findings support the use of A + I for improved recovery.

trial registrationThis trial was registered before collection of data and analysis at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06521619). Date of registration: 2024-07-26.

Indexed as

Nerve BlockPostoperative PainAgedArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeFemaleFemoral NerveHumansMaleMiddle AgedPropensity ScoreProspective StudiesSciatic NerveAdductor canal blockiPACKMotor function recoveriesNerve blockPostoperative analgesiaTotal knee arthroplasties

Identifiers

PMID40380131
PMCPMC12083146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.