.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Adductor Canal Block and Local Anesthetic Versus Local Anesthetic Alone in ACL Reconstruction: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
R
E
P
M
DOI：10.1177/03635465261464409.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Background:</jats:title>
<jats:p>Effective postoperative analgesia is crucial for early recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Local infiltration analgesia (LIA) and adductor canal block (ACB) are common regional techniques, but their combined efficacy remains unclear.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Purpose:</jats:title>
<jats:p>To compare the effectiveness of LIA alone versus LIA combined with ACB in patients undergoing ACLR, with primary outcomes including postoperative opioid consumption and quadriceps function.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Study Design:</jats:title>
<jats:p>Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Methods:</jats:title>
<jats:p>
A double-blind randomized controlled trial enrolled 100 patients undergoing ACLR under general anesthesia. Patients were randomized into 2 groups: LIA + sham (saline injection) (n = 50) and LIA + ACB (n = 50). The primary outcome was postoperative opioid consumption in the first 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, quadriceps function assessed by straight leg raise (SLR) at 3 hours, Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score, and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 1 week. Statistical analysis was performed using
<jats:italic toggle="yes">t</jats:italic>
tests and chi-square tests with a
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
value <.05 considered significant.
</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Results:</jats:title>
<jats:p>
There was no significant difference in 24-hour opioid consumption between the LIA + ACB and LIA-only groups (
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
= .109). Similarly, VAS pain scores at 24 hours postoperatively showed no significant differences between the groups (
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
= .0804). Early functional recovery, assessed by SLR performance at 3 hours, was equivalent between groups (
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
= .6711). Additionally, QoR-15 scores on postoperative day 1 and KOOS values at 1 week demonstrated no significant differences (
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
= .6486 and
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
= .9054, respectively). Intraoperative opioid consumption was not different between the groups (
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
= .127).
</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Conclusion:</jats:title>
<jats:p>These findings indicate that the addition of ACB to LIA does not yield postoperative analgesic in ACLR. Consequently, LIA alone suffices for routine ACLR, potentially enabling clinicians to optimize perioperative workflows without incurring the additional time, financial burden, and resources associated with routine ACB administration.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Trial Registration:</jats:title>
<jats:p>ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04721119</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
Journal
IF:
4.5
Papers:
9.4K
Citations:
4.0W
Organization
Cited Papers