Pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block combined with local infiltration analgesia is not superior to local infiltration analgesia for the management of postoperative pain after primary elective total hip arthroplasty: A prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Local infiltration analgesia (LIA) has been advocated for the pain management after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The analgesic benefits of an added pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block remain questionable. Methods: This randomized, single-blind trial enrolled patients undergoing elective THA under general anaesthesia and standardized postoperative analgesia. Patients were allocated to receive either a PENG block (20 mL of ropivacaine 0.475 %) combined with intraoperative LIA (PENG + LIA group, n = 32), or intraoperative LIA alone (LIA group, n = 32). The primary outcome was oral morphine equivalent (OME) consumption at day 1. Secondary outcomes were: pain scores at post anaesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge and on day 2, times for the Timed to Up and Go (TUG) test and measurement of adductor strength on day 1, and patients' satisfaction using the EVAN-G questionnaire. Results: Compared with LIA alone, PENG + LIA resulted in similar OME consumption on day 1 (78 [51-91.5] mg vs 58 [30-80] mg respectively, median difference (95%CI) of -17 (-34 to 1) mg, p = 0.09). Pain scores and morphine consumption were not different between groups at any time point. TUG and thigh adduction tests were similar between LIA and PENG + LIA groups (respectively 35 [25-48.5] vs 31.5 [19.5-46.5] sec, p = 0.39; and 105 [85-150] vs 100 [80-125] mmHg, p = 0.61). No difference in the patients' satisfaction was found. Conclusion: The addition of a PENG block to large-volume LIA did not significantly improve the analgesia for elective THA in the setting of an adequate basic postoperative analgesia regimen. The results of the lower limb functional tests confirmed the PENG block to be motor-sparing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".