Adductor Canal Block With Continuous Infusion Versus Intermittent Boluses and Morphine Consumption: A Randomized, Blinded, Controlled Clinical Trial

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Adductor Canal Block With Continuous Infusion Versus Intermittent Boluses and Morphine Consumption : A Randomized, Blinded, Controlled Clinical Trial. / Jaeger, Pia; Baggesgaard, Jonas; Sørensen, Johan K; Ilfeld, Brian M; Gottschau, Bo; Graungaard, Ben; Dahl, Jørgen; Odgaard, Anders; Grevstad, Ulrik.

In: Anesthesia and Analgesia, Vol. 126, No. 6, 2018, p. 2069-2077.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Jaeger, P, Baggesgaard, J, Sørensen, JK, Ilfeld, BM, Gottschau, B, Graungaard, B, Dahl, J, Odgaard, A & Grevstad, U 2018, 'Adductor Canal Block With Continuous Infusion Versus Intermittent Boluses and Morphine Consumption: A Randomized, Blinded, Controlled Clinical Trial', Anesthesia and Analgesia, vol. 126, no. 6, pp. 2069-2077. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002747

APA

Jaeger, P., Baggesgaard, J., Sørensen, J. K., Ilfeld, B. M., Gottschau, B., Graungaard, B., Dahl, J., Odgaard, A., & Grevstad, U. (2018). Adductor Canal Block With Continuous Infusion Versus Intermittent Boluses and Morphine Consumption: A Randomized, Blinded, Controlled Clinical Trial. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 126(6), 2069-2077. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002747

Vancouver

Jaeger P, Baggesgaard J, Sørensen JK, Ilfeld BM, Gottschau B, Graungaard B et al. Adductor Canal Block With Continuous Infusion Versus Intermittent Boluses and Morphine Consumption: A Randomized, Blinded, Controlled Clinical Trial. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2018;126(6):2069-2077. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002747

Author

Jaeger, Pia ; Baggesgaard, Jonas ; Sørensen, Johan K ; Ilfeld, Brian M ; Gottschau, Bo ; Graungaard, Ben ; Dahl, Jørgen ; Odgaard, Anders ; Grevstad, Ulrik. / Adductor Canal Block With Continuous Infusion Versus Intermittent Boluses and Morphine Consumption : A Randomized, Blinded, Controlled Clinical Trial. In: Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2018 ; Vol. 126, No. 6. pp. 2069-2077.

Bibtex

@article{43ec38ed937b4f7ba794ada67993003e,
title = "Adductor Canal Block With Continuous Infusion Versus Intermittent Boluses and Morphine Consumption: A Randomized, Blinded, Controlled Clinical Trial",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Based on the assumption that relatively large volumes of local anesthetic optimize an adductor canal block (ACB), we theorized that an ACB administered as repeated boluses would improve analgesia without compromising mobility, compared with a continuous infusion.METHODS: We performed a randomized, blinded, controlled study, including patients scheduled for total knee arthroplasty with spinal anesthesia. Patients received 0.2% ropivacaine via a catheter in the adductor canal administered as either repeated intermittent boluses (21 mL/3 h) or continuous infusion (7 mL/h). The primary outcome was total (postoperative day [POD], 0-2) opioid consumption (mg), administered as patient-controlled analgesia. Pain, ambulation, and quadriceps muscle strength were secondary outcomes.RESULTS: We randomized 110 patients, of whom 107 were analyzed. Total opioid consumption (POD, 0-2) was a median (range) of 23 mg (0-139) in the bolus group and 26 mg (3-120) in the infusion group (estimated median difference, 4 mg; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13 to 5; P = .29). Linear mixed-model analyses revealed no difference in pain during knee flexion (mean difference, 2.6 mm; 95% CI, -2.9 to 8.0) or at rest (mean difference, 1.7 mm; 95% CI, -1.5 to 4.9). Patients in the bolus group had improved quadriceps sparing on POD 2 (median difference, 7.4%; 95% CI, 0.5%-15.5%). However, this difference was not present on POD 1 or reflected in the ambulation tests (P > .05).CONCLUSIONS: Changing the mode of administration for an ACB from continuous infusion to repeated intermittent boluses did not decrease opioid consumption, pain, nor mobility.",
author = "Pia Jaeger and Jonas Baggesgaard and S{\o}rensen, {Johan K} and Ilfeld, {Brian M} and Bo Gottschau and Ben Graungaard and J{\o}rgen Dahl and Anders Odgaard and Ulrik Grevstad",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1213/ANE.0000000000002747",
language = "English",
volume = "126",
pages = "2069--2077",
journal = "Anesthesia and Analgesia",
issn = "0003-2999",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams & Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adductor Canal Block With Continuous Infusion Versus Intermittent Boluses and Morphine Consumption

T2 - A Randomized, Blinded, Controlled Clinical Trial

AU - Jaeger, Pia

AU - Baggesgaard, Jonas

AU - Sørensen, Johan K

AU - Ilfeld, Brian M

AU - Gottschau, Bo

AU - Graungaard, Ben

AU - Dahl, Jørgen

AU - Odgaard, Anders

AU - Grevstad, Ulrik

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - BACKGROUND: Based on the assumption that relatively large volumes of local anesthetic optimize an adductor canal block (ACB), we theorized that an ACB administered as repeated boluses would improve analgesia without compromising mobility, compared with a continuous infusion.METHODS: We performed a randomized, blinded, controlled study, including patients scheduled for total knee arthroplasty with spinal anesthesia. Patients received 0.2% ropivacaine via a catheter in the adductor canal administered as either repeated intermittent boluses (21 mL/3 h) or continuous infusion (7 mL/h). The primary outcome was total (postoperative day [POD], 0-2) opioid consumption (mg), administered as patient-controlled analgesia. Pain, ambulation, and quadriceps muscle strength were secondary outcomes.RESULTS: We randomized 110 patients, of whom 107 were analyzed. Total opioid consumption (POD, 0-2) was a median (range) of 23 mg (0-139) in the bolus group and 26 mg (3-120) in the infusion group (estimated median difference, 4 mg; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13 to 5; P = .29). Linear mixed-model analyses revealed no difference in pain during knee flexion (mean difference, 2.6 mm; 95% CI, -2.9 to 8.0) or at rest (mean difference, 1.7 mm; 95% CI, -1.5 to 4.9). Patients in the bolus group had improved quadriceps sparing on POD 2 (median difference, 7.4%; 95% CI, 0.5%-15.5%). However, this difference was not present on POD 1 or reflected in the ambulation tests (P > .05).CONCLUSIONS: Changing the mode of administration for an ACB from continuous infusion to repeated intermittent boluses did not decrease opioid consumption, pain, nor mobility.

AB - BACKGROUND: Based on the assumption that relatively large volumes of local anesthetic optimize an adductor canal block (ACB), we theorized that an ACB administered as repeated boluses would improve analgesia without compromising mobility, compared with a continuous infusion.METHODS: We performed a randomized, blinded, controlled study, including patients scheduled for total knee arthroplasty with spinal anesthesia. Patients received 0.2% ropivacaine via a catheter in the adductor canal administered as either repeated intermittent boluses (21 mL/3 h) or continuous infusion (7 mL/h). The primary outcome was total (postoperative day [POD], 0-2) opioid consumption (mg), administered as patient-controlled analgesia. Pain, ambulation, and quadriceps muscle strength were secondary outcomes.RESULTS: We randomized 110 patients, of whom 107 were analyzed. Total opioid consumption (POD, 0-2) was a median (range) of 23 mg (0-139) in the bolus group and 26 mg (3-120) in the infusion group (estimated median difference, 4 mg; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13 to 5; P = .29). Linear mixed-model analyses revealed no difference in pain during knee flexion (mean difference, 2.6 mm; 95% CI, -2.9 to 8.0) or at rest (mean difference, 1.7 mm; 95% CI, -1.5 to 4.9). Patients in the bolus group had improved quadriceps sparing on POD 2 (median difference, 7.4%; 95% CI, 0.5%-15.5%). However, this difference was not present on POD 1 or reflected in the ambulation tests (P > .05).CONCLUSIONS: Changing the mode of administration for an ACB from continuous infusion to repeated intermittent boluses did not decrease opioid consumption, pain, nor mobility.

U2 - 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002747

DO - 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002747

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 29293181

VL - 126

SP - 2069

EP - 2077

JO - Anesthesia and Analgesia

JF - Anesthesia and Analgesia

SN - 0003-2999

IS - 6

ER -

ID: 215462316