Comparison between Combination of Proximal Adductor Canal Block and Infiltration between Popliteal Artery and Capsule of Knee (iPACK) with Large-Volume Distal Adductor Canal Block in Facilitating Early Mobilization after Total Knee Replacement: A Randomized, Single-Blind Study

Abstract

Background: Adductor canal block (ACB) and infiltration between popliteal artery and capsule of knee (iPACK) are popular block methods for analgesia after total knee replacement (TKR), covering both the anterior and posterior knee. This study aimed to compare the performance of the combination of ACB and iPACK with large-volume distal ACB in facilitating early mobilization after TKR. Patients and Methods: This study was a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial of 30 subjects who underwent TKR. Subjects were randomly assigned to either Group A (the large-volume distal ACB) or Group B (the combination of proximal ACB and iPACK). Outcome variables included postoperative time up and go (TUG) test, numeric rating scale (NRS), postoperative morphine consumption, block-performing time, time to first opioid rescue analgesia, and side effects. Results: This study found that the block-performing time was significantly shorter in Group A compared to Group B (230.67 vs. 509.67, P < 0.001). The mean postoperative TUG test (67 vs. 64, P = 0.78), NRS at all-time points, and postoperative morphine consumption (3 vs. 3 mg, P = 0.85) did not differ significantly. No block-related side effects were found in either group. Conclusion: Large-volume distal ACB is not superior to the combination of proximal ACB and iPACK in facilitating early mobilization after TKR. Block-performing time of distal ACB was shorter compared to the combination of proximal ACB and iPACK.

Keywords

• postoperative pain; regional anesthesia; total knee replacement