A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Minimum effective concentration of ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided adductor canal + IPACK block in total knee arthroplasty. | LitMetric

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the minimum effective concentration (MEC defined as effective in 90% of patients) of ropivacaine during the combined procedure of adductor canal block (ACB) and infiltration between the popliteal artery and capsule of the posterior knee (IPACK) block for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

Methods: This double-blind, randomized dose-finding trial was based on a biased coin up-and-down sequential design, where the concentration of ropivacaine administered to a given patient depended on the previous patient's response. Before surgery, the first patient received 20 mL of 0.2% ropivacaine for ACB and again for IPACK. If the block failed, the next subject received a 0.025% higher ropivacaine concentration; otherwise, the next subject received either a 0.025% smaller dose (probability of 0.11) or the same dose (probability of 0.89). The primary outcome was whether the block was successful. Block success was defined as the patient did not suffer significant pain and did not receive rescue analgesia within 6 h after surgery. MEC was estimated by isotonic regression, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated by bootstrapping. Secondary outcomes were numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at postoperative 24 h and 48 h, postoperative morphine consumption, and time to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were compared between patients whose blocks succeeded with those which failed.

Results: Based on analysis of 52 patients, the MEC was 0.247% (95% CI 0.227-0.271%), MEC was 0.260% (95% CI 0.244-0.282%) and MEC was 0.272% (95% CI 0.260-0.291%). In contrast, four of nine trials in a recent systematic review reported ropivacaine concentrations below 0.247%. Patients whose blocks succeeded ( = 45) had significantly lower NRS pain scores, lower morphine consumption, and shorter hospitalization than patients whose blocks failed ( = 7).

Conclusions: Our small trial suggests that 0.247% ropivacaine in 20 mL respectively can provide successful ACB + IPACK block in 90% of patients. However, given that many published trials have used lower concentrations, our findings should be verified in larger studies.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10225536221122339DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ipack block
16
patients blocks
12
minimum effective
8
effective concentration
8
concentration ropivacaine
8
adductor canal
8
total knee
8
90% patients
8
acb ipack
8
subject received
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!