| Title |
Adductor canal block provides better performance after total knee arthroplasty compared with femoral nerve block: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Orthopaedics, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00264-015-2998-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Donghai Li, Zhouyuan Yang, Xiaowei Xie, Jinhai Zhao, Pengde Kang |
| Abstract |
The methods for pain control after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) vary and have been extensively studied in recent years. Femoral nerve block (FNB) is used as the standard method due to its effective pain control following TKA, but it may weaken the quadriceps strength. Adductor canal block (ACB) is a newly developing analgesic protocol with fast functional recovery and good pain control after TKA. A meta-analysis was conducted to try to find out if ACB is better than FNB in pain treatment and joint functional recovery after TKA. The databases PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched. Of 66 records identified, eight randomised controlled trials (RCT) involving 434 patients (504 knees) were eligible for data extraction and meta-analysis according to criteria included. Meta-analysis showed that ACB can significantly decrease visual analogue scale (VAS) score at rest within eight hours (p < 0.001) and at 24 hours (p < 0.001) after operation compared to FNB after TKA, and improve quadriceps strength (p < 0.001) and mobilization ability (p < 0.001). However, the differences in VAS score at rest at 48 hours, VAS score with activity within two days after operation, opioid consumption, hip adductor strength, patient satisfaction, and tourniquet times were not significant between the two groups. ACB provide better ambulation ability, faster functional recovery and better pain control at rest after TKA compared to FNB. The use of ACB post TKA is worthy of being recommended to replace FNB as a standard analgesic protocol for pain treatment after TKA. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 105 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 15% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Researcher | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 20% |
| Unknown | 31 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 52 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 33 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 January 2018.
All research outputs
#20,294,248
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from International Orthopaedics
#1,247
of 1,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,714
of 278,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Orthopaedics
#19
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,428 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.