MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405609652 · doi:10.1097/bpo.0000000000002886

Should Femoral Nerve Blocks and Adductor Canal Blocks Be Used in Pediatric or Adolescent Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction?: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4405609652 on OpenAlexaff
Prushoth Vivekanantha, Bryan Sun, Sachin Tapasvi, Isabella Jaramillo, Yuichi Hoshino, Darren de

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdductor canalAnterior cruciate ligamentAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionFemoral nerve blockAnatomyOrthopedic surgeryNerve blockSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Achieving adequate pain control is vital for proper rehabilitation, satisfaction, and earlier discharge after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Opioids have traditionally been used for this purpose, however, can be associated with various negative outcomes. As such, multimodal analgesia was introduced to reduce postoperative opioid use. Regional nerve blocks constitute one modality of multimodal analgesia, with femoral nerve blocks (FNBs) and adductor canal blocks (ACBs) being standard. This review sought to evaluate the utility and adverse effects of FNBs and ACBs relative to controls, alternative regional anesthesia options, and each other in pediatric or adolescent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: Three databases were searched on January 31, 2024. The authors adhered to the PRISMA and R-AMSTAR guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The definition of pediatric was considered to be a mean age of 18 years or younger. Data on demographics, operative and anesthetic details, strength and functional outcomes, postoperative opioid consumption, revision rates and return to sport (RTS) rates, and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores were extracted. RESULTS: Eleven studies (1 level I, 10 level III) comprising 5453 patients were included in this review (54.1% female), with a mean age of 16.3 (range of means: 15.0 to 16.9) years. Two studies compared FNB with and without a sciatic-nerve block (SNB), finding lower opioid consumption ( P =0.007) and VAS scores ( P <0.0001) in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) in the FNB + SNB group. Three studies compared FNB or ACB with controls, with no studies reporting a benefit in rates of RTS, isokinetic quadriceps or hamstrings strength, or functional test performance. There were minimal differences when comparing continuous and single nerve blocks and FNB with ACB. CONCLUSION: There is inconclusive evidence investigating the role of FNB and ACB in pediatric or adolescent ACLR. The addition of a SNB to FNB may result in improvements in opioid consumption and VAS scores in the early postoperative period. There was minimal evidence in support of continuous blocks over single-shot blocks. Future studies should compare the use of ACB, FNB, and no blocks for pediatric or adolescent ACLR, with primary endpoints of acute pain control, postoperative opioid use, and the presence of longer-term motor deficits. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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