ArticleAnesthesiology and pain medicine2025
A Comparative Analysis of Bupivacaine Concentrations in Adductor Canal Block for Pain Management Post-unilateral Knee Arthroplasty.
Article in Anesthesiology and pain medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: The adductor canal block (ACB) is a widely recognized intervention for post-surgical pain management following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Objectives: In this study, we evaluated the analgesic efficacy and functional outcomes of ACB between bupivacaine at concentrations of 0.5% and 0.25% in participants who underwent primary unilateral TKA. Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, we monitored participants who had undergone TKA surgery. They were randomly assigned to receive postoperative ACB with either 0.5% bupivacaine (22 patients) or 0.25% bupivacaine (22 patients). Data were collected at various time points following the intervention, including quadriceps muscle tone assessed by the Manual Muscle Contraction Test (MMT), pain levels measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, analgesic consumption, and patient satisfaction with pain control. Results: There was no significant difference in pain intensity between the two groups three hours after surgery (P = 0.55). However, the group receiving 0.5% bupivacaine showed a statistically significant trend toward lower VAS scores at 6, 12, and 24 hours post-operation compared to the 0.25% bupivacaine group (P = 0.02, P < 0.005, and P = 0.002, respectively). Patients' satisfaction with postoperative pain management and quadriceps muscle strength did not differ significantly between the two groups. Similarly, opioid consumption at 3, 6, and 24 hours post-surgery showed no significant difference (P = 0.052, P = 0.43). However, opioid consumption was notably higher in the 0.25% bupivacaine group 12 hours after surgery compared to the 0.5% bupivacaine group (P = 0.002). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that a higher dose of bupivacaine plays a crucial role in effectively reducing postoperative pain and minimizing the need for narcotic consumption.
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.