Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2026
Pericapsular nerve group with lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block vs. suprainguinal fascia iliaca block for analgesia in total hip arthroplasty: a prospective comparative study.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06844162 (Comparison of Postoperative Analgesic Efficacy of Suprainguinal Fascia Iliaca Block), which is not on this 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.
Comparison of Postoperative Analgesic Efficacy of Suprainguinal Fascia Iliaca Block (SFIB) and Pericapsular Nerve Group (PENG) Block With Lateral Femoral Cutaneous Nerve (LFCN) Block in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo comparepostoperative analgesia, opioid consumption, and early motor function between suprainguinal fascia iliaca block (SFIB) and pericapsular nerve group block combined with lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block (PENG+LFCN) in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) under general anesthesia.
methodsIn this single-center, prospective, non-randomized study, 48 adults undergoing posterolateral THA received either SFIB (0.25% bupivacaine 40 mL) or PENG+LFCN (0.5% bupivacaine 15 mL + 5 mL). Primary outcomes were pain scores measured using a visual analog scale (VAS) at rest and during movement at 3, 12, 24, and 48 h. Secondary outcomes included morphine use via patient controlled analgesia, quadriceps strength and physiotherapy participation. Exploratory analyses summarised total pain burden using area under the curve (AUC, 3–48 h) and time-weighted average pain (TWAP), with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) used as a sensitivity analysis.
resultsRest VAS at 24 h was lower with SFIB (1.25) vs. PENG+LFCN (2.46): mean difference 1.21 (95% CI 0.31–2.10), p = 0.017. Morphine use at 12–24 h was lower with PENG+LFCN (0.75 vs. 1.88 mg): −1.13 mg (95% CI − 2.07 to − 0.18), p = 0.027; total 0–48 h consumption was similar (p = 0.114). Quadriceps weakness at 6 h was less frequent with PENG+LFCN (29.2% vs. 54.2%; OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.11–1.15), but this difference was not statistically significant; all patients recovered full strength by 24 h. Rest-pain AUC from 3 to 48 h was numerically higher with PENG+LFCN (difference 38.0 VAS·h, 95% CI 2.66–73.34; p = 0.065), with a similar pattern in the IPTW-weighted sensitivity analysis (ATE 50.15 VAS·h; p = 0.024); movement pain was similar between groups.
conclusionsSFIB and PENG+LFCN provided broadly comparable analgesia for THA, with modest, time-specific differences suggesting a potential trade-off between lower 24-h rest pain with SFIB and lower early opioid use and numerically fewer weakness events with PENG+LFCN. These findings are hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in larger randomized trials.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT06844162; retrospectively registered on 25 February 2025.
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.