Supra-inguinal fascia iliaca compartment block versus Pericapsular nerve group block-lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block combination after hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3395086/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Supra-inguinal fascia iliaca compartment block versus Pericapsular nerve group block-lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block combination after hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3395086/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: Total hip arthroplasty can cause moderate and severe pain that can have a profound impact during postoperative rehabilitation. Regional nerve block is recommended for anesthesia and analgesia during hip surgery. In particular, the iliac fascia space block of the inguinal ligament is a widely used technique in clinical practice that can block the femoral nerve trunk, obturator nerve trunk, and lateral femoral cutaneous nerve simultaneously. This study aimed to compare the effect of supra-inguinal fascia iliaca compartment block (S-FICB) to a combination of pericapsular nerve group block (PNGB) and lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block (LFCNB) on block range and analgesia as well as motor function of patients with total hip arthroplasty.

Methods: Sixty patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty through posterolateral approach were randomly divided into two groups with 30 patients each. After complete awakening from general anesthesia, patients received ultrasound-guided S-FICB with 40 mL 0.4% ropivacaine (group S) or 20 mL 0.4% ropivacaine PNGB combined with 3 mL 0.4% ropivacaine LFCNB (PL group). We used the Numerical Rating Scale and cumulative dosage of sufentanil to grade pain during the first 48 h. Quadriceps femoris muscle and adductor muscle strength, range of sensory block, length of stay, and complications were also recorded.

Results: No significant differences were found in analgesic indicators of both groups (P＞0.05). The Numerical Rating Scale scores of resting pain at each time point after the blockage were significantly lower than those before the blockage (P＜0.05). However, the PL group had significantly less incidence of analgesia sensation in the anterior and medial side of the thigh (P<0.05), and less incidence of quadriceps and adductor weakness (P＜0.05) at 1 h and 6 h after the blockage compared to that in group S.

Conclusions: Compared to S-FICB, the combination of PNGB and LFCNB provided equivalent analgesic effect and significantly lowered the risk of numbness and muscle weakness of the thigh. This combination can be used as a new option in multimodal analgesia after total hip arthroplasty.

Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (no. ChiCTR2200055963, date of registration: 29/01/2022)

analgesia

muscle weakness

numbness

regional nerve block.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) reduces long-term complications in patients with severe hip joint diseases [1]. However, it can cause moderate and severe pain that can have a profound impact during postoperative rehabilitation [2]. Regional nerve block is recommended for anesthesia and analgesia during hip surgery [3]. In particular, the iliac fascia space block of the inguinal ligament is a widely used technique in clinical practice that can block the femoral nerve trunk, obturator nerve trunk, and lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) simultaneously [4]. Since it blocks the femoral nerve trunk, it can cause quadriceps femoris weakness, which may affect the functional exercise ability of patients [5]. Philip et al. (2018) proposed that hip pericapsular nerve group block (PNGB), can target and block the hip sensory branch of femoral nerve, hip sensory branch of obturator nerve, and variant accessory obturator nerve between the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) and iliopubic eminence [6]. Since the pain resulting from a lateral thigh incision is due to the LFCN [7], it is speculated that PNGB combined with lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block (LFCNB) is more suitable for postoperative analgesia in association with THA.

This study aimed to compare the advantages and disadvantages of postoperative pain relief and early sensory and motor ability between the different blocks to provide basis for better postoperative analgesia in THA.

General information

This study was approved by the China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University Institutional Review Committee (20220118007) and was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200055963)on 29/01/2022. Sixty patients who underwent elective THA under general anesthesia were included in this study at China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin from January 2022 to June 2022. The inclusion criteria comprised patients who were American Society of Anesthesiologists grades I–III aged 18–90 years old with body mass index (BMI) of 18–28 kg/m² and used patient-controlled intravenous analgesia after surgery. The exclusion criteria consists of those with allergies to local anesthetics, general anesthetics, and disinfectants; infection of puncture site; severe systemic diseases including respiratory failure, cardiac insufficiency, coagulation disorder, and liver and kidney insufficiency; complicated central nervous system diseases; language dysfunction, inability to cooperate with the evaluation of a digital analog pain score [Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)] and postoperative follow-up; and chronic motor dysfunction of the lower limbs. Patients voluntarily participated and provided written informed consent.

Procedures

Sixty patients were divided into S and PL groups (defined below) with 30 cases in each group (see Additional file 1). After entering the operating room, venous access was obtained, and vital signs were monitored. A slow intravenous injection of midazolam 0.03 mg/kg, propofol 2 mg/kg (an appropriate compound, etomidate, for older patients), cis-atracurium 0.2 mg/kg, and sufentanil 0.3 µg/kg was administered to complete the induction of anesthesia, and mechanical ventilation was performed after endotracheal intubation. Propofol and remifentanil were administered via pump infusion for anesthesia maintenance, and bispectral index value was maintained at 40–60. After extubation, the patient was transferred to an anesthesia recovery room. NRS pain scores at rest were evaluated when the patient fully recovered to a quiet and cooperative state. Subsequently, nerve block was performed by the same experienced anesthesiologist according to the results of randomization.

In the group S, the 5–12-MHz high-frequency linear array probe was placed at the inguinal ligament in the outer 1/3 of the line between pubic tubercle and ASIS so that the probe was at a 40° from the sagittal plane. The probe was adjusted to completely display the “bow tie sign,” composed of the sartorius muscle, internal oblique muscle, iliac fascia, iliopsoas muscle, and deep iliac circumflex artery superficial to the iliac fascia. After 2% of lidocaine local anesthesia took effect, the needle was inserted from the caudal to the cephalic side by an in-plane puncture technique that reached the iliac fascia space between the deep iliac circumflex artery and iliopsoas muscle, and 40 mL of 0.4% ropivacaine was injected after no blood was withdrawn.

Meanwhile, patients in the PL group were treated with PNGB combined with LFCN block. After local skin disinfection, the 2–5 MHz low frequency convex array ultrasound probe was placed horizontally at the anterior inferior iliac spine and the probe was rotated counterclockwise about 45° to show the femoral artery, iliopsoas muscle, pubic muscle, pubic branch, and iliopubic eminence. After 2% of lidocaine local anesthesia took effect, the needle was inserted from outside to inside using the in-plane method. Once the needle tip reached the myofascial space between psoas major tendon and pubic branch and no blood was withdrawn, 20 mL of 0.4% ropivacaine was slowly injected for PNGB (Fig. 1). Then, the 5–12 MHz high-frequency linear array probe was removed and placed 2 cm below the ASIS to identify the sartorius and tensor fasciae latae muscles, and the LFCN was identified in the fat pad between them and traced to the proximal end of the nerve as far as possible. After administering the same local anesthesia, 3 mL of 0.4% ropivacaine was injected to block the LFCN.

Patients in both groups were attached to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia pumps before leaving the operating room after surgery. The pumps consisted of 150 µg sufentanil and 10 mg tropisetron mixed with 0.9% sodium chloride injection to 100 mL. The analgesic pump was set to a continuous infusion volume of 2 mL/h, increased by 0.5 mL/time with a locking time of 15 min. When the resting NRS score was ≥ 4, the patients were instructed to add analgesia through the intravenous analgesic pump. If relief is not achieved after 15 min, a remedial analgesia is given using non-steroidal drugs, 50 mg tramadol, and 3 mg oxycodone until the resting NRS score became ≤ 2.

Observation indicators

(1) General indicators: sex, age, BMI, and operation time of patients.

(2) Evaluation of analgesic effect: NRS pain score at rest before administering nerve block, NRS pain score at rest and exercise at 1 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, and 48 h after administering nerve block. The patient controlled the number of supplements, cumulative dosage of sufentanil, analgesic satisfaction score (range 0–10), and additional analgesic dosage within 24 h and 24–48 h after block.

(3) Evaluation of block effect: The cold stimulation method was used to evaluate the sensory block range 30 min after the block. Compared with the healthy limb, the sensory hypoesthesia of the anterior, medial, and lateral skin of the thigh were recorded. Muscle strength was evaluated through the incidence of myasthenia (muscle strength ≤ grade 2) at 1 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, and 48 h after the block was evaluated using the Lovett grading method [8]. The patient was instructed to undergo straight leg raise of the lower limb on the operated side at a certain resistance over time, and the quadriceps muscle strength was graded. Moreover, patient was then instructed to adduct lower limb on the operated side at a certain resistance over time, and the adductor muscle strength was graded.

(4) Postoperative length of stay.

(5) Occurrence of adverse reactions such as infection, hematoma, nausea and vomiting, and dizziness at the puncture site.

Statistical analysis

Previous reports regard a mean difference of 2.0 in pain scores between the groups as clinically significant. Thus, a calculated sample size of 30 patients per group will be required to provide us with a statistical power of 0.8 and a type 1 error of 0.05 for a 2-tailed test [9]. SPSS 21.0 was used for statistical analysis. Mean ± standard deviation () was used for describing the measurement data. Independent samples t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare data conforming a normal and nonparametric distribution, respectively. NRS scores during resting pain and exercise pain at different time points were compared using the generalized estimation equation. Classification and counting data were expressed as the number of cases (percentage), and the comparison between groups was assessed using χ² test. Significance was set at P < 0.05.

Comparison of general data

No patients in either group quit or were lost to follow-up. No statistical difference in sex ratio, age, BMI, and operation time between the two groups was found (P > 0.05, Table 1).

Table 1. Comparison of general data and operation time between the two groups

Group	Age (years)	Male/female	BMI (kg/㎡)	Operation time (min)
Group PL	63.57±12.41	13/17	24.12±4.02	91.63±28.20
Group S	62.90±13.45	13/17	23.85±3.29	101.83±34.58
t/χ²	0.200	0.000	0.281	1.252
P	0.67	1.00	0.78	0.22

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index

Primary results

Comparison of NRS scores of resting pain before and after block between the two groups

The generalized estimation equation showed no significant difference in NRS scores of resting pain among different groups and interaction between groups and time (P > 0.05), but there was a significant difference at different time points (P < 0.05). The comparison between the two groups at the same time point showed no significant difference in the NRS scores of resting pain before and after administering nerve block (P > 0.05). In Group PL, the NRS score of resting pain at 48 h after blockage was significantly lower than that at 1 h, 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h after blockage. In Group S, the NRS scores of resting pain at 24 h and 48 h after blockage were significantly lower than that at 1 h, 6 h, and 12 h after block (P < 0.05, Table 2).

Table 2. Comparison of Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores of resting pain before and after block between the two groups [n=30, P50 (P25, P75)]

Group	Before block	1 h	6 h	12 h	24 h	48 h
Group PL	3 (2,4)	0 (0, 2)^a	0 (0, 2)^a	0 (0, 2)^a	0 (0, 1)^a	0 (0, 0)^a-e
Group S	4 (2,5)	1.5 (0, 2)^a	1 (0, 2)^a	0.5 (0, 2)^a	0 (0, 1)^a-d	0 (0, 0)^a-d
Waldχ²	0.045	3.671	1.205	0.265	0.358	0.205
P	0.83	0.06	0.27	0.61	0.55	0.65

Waldχ²_intergroup= 0.978, P=0.323; Waldχ²_time = 219.631, P=0.000; Waldχ²_{intergroup * time}= 6.033, P=0.303.

^a compared with pre-block, ^b compared with 1 h, ^c compared with 6 h, ^d compared with 12 h, ^e compared with 24 h, all P < 0.05.

Comparison of the NRS of motor pain at each time point after administering block between the two groups

No significant difference was found in the NRS scores of motor pain among different groups and interaction between groups and time (P > 0.05), but there was a significant difference in different time points (P < 0.05). Comparing the two groups at the same time point showed no significant difference in the NRS scores of motor pain at each time point before and after blockage (P > 0.05). In Group PL, the NRS scores during exercise pain at 48 h after block were significantly lower than those at 1 h, 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h after blockage. Meanwhile, in Group S, NRS scores at 24 h and 48 h after blockage were significantly lower than those at 1 h, 6 h, and 12 h after blockage (P < 0.05, Table 3).

Table 3. Comparison of NRS scores of motor pain before and after block between the two groups [n=30, P50 (P25, P75)]

Group	1 h	6 h	12 h	24 h	48 h
Group PL	3 (2,4)	3 (2.75,4)	3 (2,4)	3 (2, 3.25)^b,c	2 (2,2.25)^a-d
Group S	3 (2,4)	3 (2,4)	3 (2,4)	3 (2, 3)^a-c	2.5 (2, 3)^a-c
Waldχ²	0.606	0.418	0.318	0.392	1.245
P	0.44	0.52	0.57	0.53	0.27

Waldχ²_intergroup= 0.121, P=0.728; Waldχ²_time = 80.547, P=0.000; Waldχ²_{intergroup * time}= 5.248, P=0.263.

^a compared with 1 h; ^b compared with 6 h, ^c compared with 12 h, ^d compared with 24 h, all P < 0.05.

Abbreviations: NRS, Numerical Rating Scale

Comparison of postoperative analgesic drugs and analgesic satisfaction between the two groups

No remedial analgesia was used in either group. No significant difference in the number of additional analgesic pumps and the dosage of sufentanil required within 24 h and 24–48 h was found between the two groups (P > 0.05, Table 4). The postoperative pain satisfaction of the two groups was 9 (8, 9) in Group PL and 9 (8, 9) in Group S, with no significant difference (Z=-0.848, P=0.397). The satisfaction of 48-hour analgesia was 9 (9, 10) in Group PL and 9 (9, 9) in Group S, with no significant difference (Z=-0.591, P=0.554).

Table 4. Number of analgesic pump and dosage of sufentanil within 24 h and 48 h after block in the two groups [n=30, P50(P25, P75)]

Group	Additional times within 24 h	Dosage of sufentanil (ug) within 24 h	Additional times within 24–48 h	Dosage of sufentanil (ug) within 48 h
Group PL	0 (0,4)	72 (72,75)	0 (0,4)	144 (144,147)
Group S	0 (0,2)	72 (72,73.5)	0 (0,2)	144 (144,145.5)
Z	-0.688	-0.635	-0.549	-0.627
P	0.50	0.53	0.58	0.53

Comparison of muscle strength at each time point after administering nerve blocks in the two groups

Compared with Group PL, Group S had a higher rate of quadriceps weakness at 1 h and 6 h after blockage, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05, Table 5). The rate of adductor muscle weakness in Group S was higher than that in Group PL at 1 h and 6 h after blockage (P < 0.05, Table 6).

Table 5. Weakness of quadriceps femoris at each time point after block in the two groups [n=30, n(%)]

Group	1 h	6 h	12 h	24 h	48 h
Group PL	5 (16.7)	4 (13.3)	2 (6.7)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Group S	24 (80.0)	21 (70.0)	7 (23.3)	2 (6.7)	0 (0.0)
χ²	24.093	19.817	2.092	0.517	-
P	<0.001	<0.001	0.15	0.47	-

Table 6. Abductor muscle weakness at each time point after block in both groups [n=30, n(%)]

Group	1 h	6 h	12 h	24 h	48 h
Group PL	4 (13.3)	4 (13.3)	2 (6.7)	1 (3.3)	0 (0.0)
Group S	21 (70.0)	16 (53.3)	5 (16.7)	2 (6.7)	0 (0.0)
χ²	19.817	10.800	0.647	0.000	-
P	<0.001	0.001	0.42	1.00	-

Secondary results

Comparison of skin sensory block between the two groups 30 min after blockage

Thirty minutes after administering nerve block, the anterior thigh sensation of patients in Group PL decreased in 11 cases (36.7%), which was significantly lower than those in Group S (100%; χ² = 27.8, P < 0.01). There were nine cases (30.0%) with hypoesthesia in the medial thigh in Group PL, which was significantly lower than that in Group S (73.3%; χ² = 11.279, P < 0.01). There were 30 cases (100%) in Group PL and 29 cases (96.7%) in Group S, with no significant difference (χ² = 0, P=1. 0).

Comparison of postoperative hospitalization time and adverse reactions

The postoperative hospital stay was 7.00 (4.75, 8.25) days in Group PL and 6.00 (4.00, 7.25) days in Group S, with no significant difference (Z=-1. 029, P=0. 303). Postoperative nausea and vomiting occurred in four cases (13.3%) in Group PL and six cases (20.0%) in Group S; while postoperative dizziness occurred in four cases (13.3%) in Group PL and four cases (13.3%) in Group S. No puncture site infection and hematoma was present in the patients of both groups, and had no significant difference for adverse events (P > 0.05).

The innervation of the hip joint is complex. Its sensory fibers are mainly distributed in the anterior part of the hip joint capsule, and the sensory branch of the hip joint of the femoral nerve and accessory obturator nerve, play important roles [10,11]. Given the posterior part of hip capsule is innervated by the superior gluteal nerve and articular branch of the sciatic nerve [12], intravenous analgesia was applied based on nerve blocks in both groups. Compared with supra-inguinal fascia iliaca compartment block (S-FICB), PNGB combined with LFCNB were associated with similar analgesic scores, opioid use, and analgesic satisfaction after THA at each time point. This suggests that the analgesic effect of PNGB combined with LFCNB was similar with S-FICB, which is consistent with case reports suggesting that the combined scheme could be used for anesthesia in hip arthroscopy [7].

In terms of exercise, PNGB has less of an effect on lower limb muscle strength than that of S-FICB, which is beneficial to the preservation and recovery of patients’ active motor function after surgery. However, there is still a 16.7% probability of quadriceps weakness 1 h after blockage. A similar result explained liquid medicine may directly infiltrate the femoral nerve through the psoas major muscle, or that the puncture needle is closer to the pubic muscle, which spreads the liquid medicine to the main trunk of the femoral nerve through the gap between the pubic muscle and the psoas major muscle, hence resulting in a motor block [13]. To avoid this, the needle body has to be rotated to penetrate the needle tip into the psoas major fascia and that the liquid medicine can diffuse in the plane between the psoas major tendon and the iliopubic eminence [13].

Given that the sensory distribution of the obturator nerve in the inner thigh is quite different or even missing, a sensory block cannot be used as a sign of successful obturator nerve block; the only reliable indication is thigh adductor muscle weakness [14]. Therefore, in this study, adductor myasthenia was used to evaluate the effect of S-FICB on the obturator nerve. According to the recommended dose of KRIS Vermeylen [15], 40 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine was used. The probability of adductor myasthenia at 1 h was 70% and that at 6 h was 53.3%, which was higher than that in the PNGB combined with LFCN group. At the same time, the block rate of the obturator nerve by this method did not reach 100%, which was consistent with the literature [16,17], As S-FICB has obvious influence on the muscle strength of quadriceps femoris and adductor muscle within 24 h, it is necessary to pay attention to the effect of S-FICB on active functional exercise ability in the early stage of single analgesia or continuous block analgesia as it may lead to an increased risk of falling during autonomous activities, consistent with previous studies [5]. In terms of sensory block range, the present study showed that PNGB combined with LFCNB significantly reduced the sensory block of the anterior and medial thigh skin, indicating that PNGB can target the sensory branches of the hip joint, but has negligible effect on the nerve trunk.

This study has several limitations. First, this was a single-center study with a limited number of cases. Future studies should recruit larger sample size, and the results of the present study must be verified by a multicenter study. Second, the qualitative evaluation of muscle strength was not sufficiently accurate; thus, it could be quantitatively evaluated using a handheld muscle strength meter. Third, no placebo control group was included. Anatomical studies have reported that 10 mL of local anesthetic can also spread between the anterior capsule of the hip joint and the iliopsoas muscle [18]. A follow-up test should include a combined group of low-volume PNGB, LFCNB, and placebo control group without nerve block to determine the best dose of local anesthetics. Finally, this study did not conduct a follow-up test for the patients after 48 h. Joint function, activity recovery, and chronic pain should be evaluated three months after surgery.

When combined with LFCNB, PNGB has the same postoperative analgesic effect as iliac fascia space block on the inguinal ligament. It can reduce the range of skin hypoesthesia and preserve the motor function of patients, which is more conducive to early postoperative exercise and rehabilitation and can be used as a new option in multimodal analgesia after THA.

ASIS: Anterior superior iliac spine

BMI: Body mass index

LFCN: Lateral femoral cutaneous nerve

LFCNB: Lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block

NRS: Numerical Rating Scale

PNGB: Pericapsular nerve group block

S-FICB: Supra-inguinal fascia iliaca compartment block

THA: Total hip arthroplasty

Ethics approval and consent to participate: This study was approved by the China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University Institutional Review Committee (20220118007) and was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200055963). Patients voluntarily participated and provided written informed consent.

Consent for publication: Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials: The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Authors' contributions: YT was responsible for Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Roles/Writing - original draft. KL was responsible for Project administration, Writing - review & editing, Resources, and Funding acquisition.YY was responsible for Data curation and Software. ZH was responsible for Validation and Visualization. WL was responsible for Investigation and Formal analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript

Acknowledgements: My deepest gratitude goes first to Professor Zhao Guoqing, my supervisor during the postgraduate period, for his constant encouragement and guidance. Second, I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Li Longyun, who gave me a lot of support in my experiment. Last my thanks would go to my beloved family for their loving considerations and great confidence in me all through these years.

Zhang HY. Clinical effect of THA in the treatment of femoral neck fracture in the elderly. Chin J Mod Drug Appl. 2020;14:96-8.
Skinner HB, Shintani EY. Results of a multimodal analgesic trial involving patients with total hip or total knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2004;33:85-92; discussion 92.
Yue Z, Ni XH. Application of ultrasound combined with nerve stimulator for lower limb nerve block in elderly patients with hip replacement. Xinjiang Med J. 2009;49:885-8.
Neubrand TL, Roswell K, Deakyne S, Kocher K, Wathen J. Fascia iliaca compartment nerve block versus systemic pain control for acute femur fractures in the pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2014;30:469-73.
Bober K, Kadado A, Charters M, Ayoola A, North T. Pain control after THA: a randomized controlled trial determining efficacy of fascia iliaca compartment blocks in the immediate postoperative period. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35:S241-5.
Girón-Arango L, Peng PWH, Chin KJ, Brull R, Perlas A. Pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block for hip fracture. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018;43:859-63.
Roy R, Agarwal G, Pradhan C, Kuanar D. Total postoperative analgesia for hip surgeries, PENG block with LFCN block. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019;44:684.
Li Z, Wang M, Zhang L, Fan X, Tao X, Qi L, et al. Neuronavigation-guided corticospinal tract mapping in brainstem tumor surgery: better preservation of motor function. World Neurosurg. 2018;116:e291-7.
Choi YS, Park KK, Lee B, Nam WS, Kim DH. Pericapsular Nerve Group (PENG) block versus supra-Inguinal fascia iliaca compartment block for total hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. J Pers Med. 2022;12:408.
Gerhardt M, Johnson K, Atkinson R, Snow B, Shaw C, Brown A, et al. Characterisation and classification of the neural anatomy in the human hip joint. Hip Int. 2012;22:75-81.
Bhatia A, Hoydonckx Y, Peng P, Cohen SP. Radiofrequency procedures to relieve chronic hip pain: an evidence-based narrative review. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018;43:72-83.
Birnbaum K, Prescher A, Hessler S, Heller KD. The sensory innervation of the hip joint - an anatomical study. Surg Radiol Anat. 1997;19:371-5.
Giron Arango L, Peng P. Reply to Dr Yu et al. Inadvertent quadriceps weakness following the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019;44:613-4.
Bouaziz H, Vial F, Jochum D, Macalou D, Heck M, Meuret P, et al. An evaluation of the cutaneous distribution after obturator nerve block. Anesth Analg. 2002;94:445-9.
Vermeylen K, Soetens F, Leunen I, Hadzic A, Van Boxtael S, Pomés J, et al. The effect of the volume of supra-inguinal injected solution on the spread of the injectate under the fascia iliaca: a preliminary study. J Anesth. 2018;32:908-13.
Marhofer P, Nasel C, Sitzwohl C, Kapral S. Magnetic resonance imaging of the distribution of local anesthetic during the three-in-one block. Anesth Analg. 2000;90:119-24.
Swenson JD, Davis JJ, Stream JO, Crim JR, Burks RT, Greis PE. Local anesthetic injection deep to the fascia iliaca at the level of the inguinal ligament: the pattern of distribution and effects on the obturator nerve. J Clin Anesth. 2015;27:652-7.
Tran J, Agur A, Peng P. Is pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block a true pericapsular block? Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019;44:257.

No competing interests reported.

Additionalfile1.tif
File name: Additional file 1 File format: .eps Title of data: CONSORT 2010 Flow Diagram Description of data: The enrollment of this trial.
CONSORTchecklist.doc
detailedtrialprotocol.doc

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Supra-inguinal fascia iliaca compartment block versus Pericapsular nerve group block-lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block combination after hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

General information

Procedures

Observation indicators

Statistical analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1