Obturator Versus Femoral Nerve Block for Analgesia After Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both femoral and obturator nerve blocks have been suggested to be useful in relieving pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We sought to compare their efficacy. METHODS: Sixty patients undergoing elective unilateral TKA under spinal anesthesia received in a randomized, double-blind manner a femoral, obturator, or sham nerve block at the end of surgery. Blocks were performed using nerve stimulation and 20 mL bupivacaine 0.5% containing epinephrine 5 microg/mL. Patient-controlled IV analgesia with fentanyl, celecoxib 100 mg PO bid, and acetaminophen 650 mg PO every 6 h were started on arrival in the recovery room. Pain (0-10 numeric rating scale, NRS) at rest and with movement, analgesic use, and side effects were recorded for 48 h. Maximum knee flexion and total days in hospital were recorded as functional outcomes. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the obturator block group and the control group in any outcome variable. With baseline pain scores subtracted, femoral block resulted in less pain at rest compared with control (NRS difference from baseline 2.1 +/- 0.4 sem vs 3.4 +/- 0.4, respectively; P = 0.02) and less pain with movement (NRS difference 2.6 +/- 0.6, 4.3 +/- 0.6, P = 0.05) at recovery room discharge. Neither block had a significant effect on opioid use, functional outcome, or side effects. Only one (5%) patient with femoral block developed obturator motor block. CONCLUSION: Femoral nerve blocks rarely block the obturator nerve. Single-injection femoral nerve block improved multimodal analgesia after spinal anesthesia for TKA, but this effect did not persist beyond the day of surgery. Obturator nerve block alone was of no benefit.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".