ReviewCureus2026
Pericapsular Nerve Group Block Combined With Lateral Femoral Cutaneous Nerve Block Versus Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block for Hip Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Postoperative pain after hip surgery remains a critical challenge, and traditional regional blocks like the fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) frequently cause quadriceps motor weakness. The pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block, combined with a lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) block, is a novel motor-sparing alternative. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of PENG + LFCN versus FICB in patients undergoing hip surgery. A systematic search was conducted across five databases (PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, Web of Science [WoS], and Google Scholar) up to December 2025. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed for methodological quality using the RoB-2 tool. Primary outcomes were pain scores and quadriceps motor strength (QMS). Secondary outcomes included rescue analgesia, time to first ambulation, and complications. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) were pooled with 95% confidence interval (CI). Five RCTs involving 382 patients were included. The PENG + LFCN block significantly improved QMS compared to FICB at 6 hours (SMD: 1.04, 95% CI [0.63, 1.45]; p < 0.001), 12 hours (SMD: 2.02, 95% CI [0.64, 3.40]; p < 0.001), and 24 hours (SMD: 0.90, 95% CI [0.12, 1.68]; p = 0.02). Furthermore, the combined block significantly decreased pain scores at rest at 12 hours (SMD: -0.88, 95% CI [-1.62, -0.15]; p = 0.02), 24 hours (SMD: -0.80, 95% CI [-1.41, -0.19]; p = 0.01), and 48 hours (SMD: -1.04, 95% CI [-1.66, -0.42]; p < 0.001). The PENG + LFCN block was associated with a significant reduction in rescue analgesia requirements (RR: 0.44, 95% CI [0.22, 0.86]; p = 0.02) and time to first ambulation (MD: -4.08 hours, 95% CI [-7.37, -0.80]; p = 0.01). The PENG + LFCN block was associated with a significant motor-sparing effect and reduced pain scores at rest compared to FICB, resulting in faster ambulation and lower requirements for rescue analgesia. Accordingly, this combined block may represent a better alternative for optimal postoperative recovery in hip surgery, but more trials remain warranted.
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.