ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Supra Inguinal Fascia Iliac Versus PENG Block for Post-Operative Pain Management of Hip Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. 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.
- Suprainguinal versus infrainguinal fascia iliaca compartment block for hip surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective post-operative pain management following hip arthroplasty is critical to improving recovery, reducing opioid consumption, enhancing mobility, and reducing the risk of complications for patients. Multimodal anesthesia strategies, including the supra inguinal fascia iliac block (SIFIB) and the periarticular nerve group (PENG) block have become the new point of focus as opposed to traditional methods previously used. This narrative review compares the SIFIB and the PENG block in their efficacy to treat post-operative pain management. Mechanism of action, safety, patient outcomes, and clinical applications are compared between the two blocks for evaluation. Clinical studies have indicated that both blocks reduce post-operative pain and reduce opioid use. In contrast, SIFIB has shown to be more preferred in more complex procedures such as total hip arthroplasty, which requires extensive nerve coverage despite its longer onset time. The SIFIB has been shown to carry a higher risk of impairing motor function, making the PENG highly preferred in patients where quick mobility improvement is prioritized. The PENG block also showed slightly higher efficacy in reducing pain associated with post-operative passive limb movements, and a slight decrease in opioid consumption in comparison to SIFIB in the early post-operative time frame. Although the PENG shows more benefits in the early stages of post-operative recovery, the SIFIB shows similar outcomes to PENG over longer durations of recovery. Future studies can aid in establishing a framework for tailoring block selection to individual patient needs to optimize clinical outcomes.
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.