A comparison of continuous femoral nerve block and periarticular local infiltration analgesia in the management of early period pain developing after total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: This study aimed to compare the effects of 24-h continuous femoral nerve block (CFNB) and periarticular infiltration analgesia (PIA) on postoperative pain and functional results in the first 6 weeks after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: Sixty patients who underwent unilateral TKA were included in this study. The patients were divided into two groups: Group A received CFNB and Group B received PIA. Each patient received 0.25% levobupivacaine and 1:100,000 epinephrine as infiltration to the posterior capsule. A patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device was used for all patients, and 24-h tramadol usage by patients was recorded. We measured maximum range of motion (ROM), pain using a visual analog scale (VAS), 2-min walk test (2MWT), and the scores of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and Knee Society Score (KSS). Results: Compared with Group B, Group A had lower postoperative opioid usage (p<0.05), less pain at rest (p<0.05), less pain with passive motion (p<0.05), less pain with movement and after active movement (p<0.05), and superior passive and active ROM (p<0.05). Group A also had better 2MWT results at 24 and 48 h after surgery (p<0.05), and superior WOMAC and KSS results at 6 weeks after surgery. Conclusion: As long as it is applied with infiltration analgesia to the posterior capsule, CFNB is an effective and safe analgesia method resulting in better postoperative patient comfort and greater ROM. Furthermore, it produces better results in the early postoperative period with a favorable side effect profile. Özet Amaç: 24 saat devamlı femoral sinir bloğu (DFSB) ve periartiku¨ler infiltrasyon analjezisinin (PİA) total diz artroplastisi (TDA) sonrası ağrı ve ameliyat sonrası erken dönem (6 hafta) fonksiyonel sonuçlara olan etkisinin karşılaştırılmasıdır. Çalışma planı: Tek taraflı TDA yapılan 60 hasta çalışmaya alınarak, iki farklı çalışma grubu oluşturuldu. Grup A, DFSB uygulanan hastalardan, grup B, PİA uygulanan hastalardan oluşmakta idi. Tu¨m hastaların diz eklemi arka kapsu¨lu¨ne, %0.25 levobupivakain ve 1:100,000 epinefrin içeren solu¨syon uygulandı. Tu¨m hastalara hasta-kontrollu¨ analjezi (PCA) cihazı takıldı ve 24 saatlik tramadol kullanımı kaydedildi. Maksimum hareket açıklığı (ROM), ağrı ve fonksiyonel durum, görsel ağrı skalası (VAS), iki dakika yu¨ru¨me testi, Western Ontario ve McMaster Üniversiteleri Osteoartrit İndeksi (WOMAC) ve Diz Cemiyeti Değerlendirme (KSS) testleri ile değerlendirildi. Bulgular: B grubu ile karşılaştırıldığında, A grubundaki hastaların opioid kullanımı daha az (p<0.05), ameliyat sonrası istirahatte ağrı kontrolu¨ daha iyi idi (p<0.05). Aktif ve pasif hareket ile daha az ağrı (p<0.05) oluşurken, aktif ve pasif hareket ile daha iyi hareket açıklığı var idi (p<0.05). Grup A’nın ameliyat sonrası iki dakika yu¨ru¨me testi sonuçları daha iyi (p<0.05), WOMAC ve KSS sonuçları da ameliyat sonrası altıncı haftada daha u¨stu¨n idi. Çıkarımlar: DFSB diz eklemi arka kapsu¨lu¨ne infiltrasyon analjezisi ile uygulandığı takdirde, du¨şu¨k yan etki profili ile ameliyat sonrası daha iyi hasta konforu ve daha fazla hareket açıklığı sağlayan etkili ve gu¨venilir bir analjezi metodur. Bu özet, makalenin henüz redaksiyonu tamamlanmamış haline aittir ve bilgi verme amaçlıdır. Yayın aşamasında değişiklik gösterebilir.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".