MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404334760 · doi:10.2147/jpr.s462079

Continuous Adductor Canal Block Compared to Epidural Anesthesia for Total Knee Arthroplasty

2024· article· en· W4404334760 on OpenAlexaff
Isaac G. Freedman, Michael R. Mercier, Anoop R. Galivanche, Mani Ratnesh S. Sandhu, Mark Hocevar, Harold G. Moore, Jonathan N. Grauer, Lee E. Rubin, Jinlei Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pain Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersYale University
KeywordsAdductor canalMedicineTotal knee arthroplastyAnesthesiaArthroplastyEpidural blockSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: To compare the efficacy of a postoperative continuous adductor canal block (cACB) with and without a steroid adjuvant to that of epidural analgesia (EA). Methods: Patients who underwent primary total TKA at a single institution between July 2011-November 2017 were included for retrospective analysis. TKA patients were stratified into one of the three analgesia approaches: EA, cACB without steroid adjuvant, and cACB with steroid adjuvant. Hospital length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, incidence of postoperative adverse events, and total milligram morphine equivalents (MME) requirements were compared between strata. Logistic regressions were performed to assess the independent effect of analgesia approach on prolonged LOS greater than 3 days (pLOS), non-home discharge, and total and daily MME requirements (tMME and dMME) following TKA. Results: Of the 4345 patients undergoing TKA, 1556 (35.83%) received EA, 2087 (48.03%) received cACB without steroids, and 702 (16.13%) cACB with steroids. cACB patients experienced lower rates of pLOS, higher rates of discharge to home than EA patients, and lower tMME and dMME. On multivariable analysis, cACB groups were at a lower odds of experiencing a pLOS compared to EA patients without steroids (OR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.49– 0.84; with steroids: OR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.38– 0.76). cACB groups had lower odds of a non-home discharge when compared to EA patients (without steroids OR = 0.42; 95% CI 0.36– 0.48; with steroids: OR 0.22; 95% CI 0.18– 0.27). On multivariable analysis, cACB groups required less tMME compared to the EA group (without steroids β=− 290 mmE; 95% CI: − 313 to − 268 mmE; with steroids: β=− 261 mmE; 95% CI: − 289 to − 233 mmE) as well as lower dMME (without steroids: β=− 66 mmE/day; 95% CI − 72 to − 60 mmE/day; with steroids: β=− 48 mmE/day; 95% CI − 55 to − 40 mmE/day). Conclusion: cACB was associated with greater discharge to home rates, lower rates of pLOS, and lower tMME and dMME consumption. Level of Evidence: Level III Plain Language Summary: Anesthesia practice for TKA in the inpatient setting varies widely. Retrospectively compared outcomes for EA and cACB with or without steroids in TKA. cACB is associated with superior perioperative outcomes vs EA. cACB is associated with reduced opioid analgesia requirements vs EA. cACB with steroids was superior to cACB without steroids. Keywords: adductor canal block, knee arthroplasty, complications, length of stay, pain control, milligram morphine equivalents, dexamethasone, methylprednisolone acetate, steroid, NSQIP, MME A Letter to the Editor has been published for this article . A Response to Letter by Dr Li has been published for this article.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pain ResearchSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207