36
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Neuromodulation and Interventional

Comparison of the Effect of Pericapsular Nerve Group Block Combined with Lateral Femoral Cutaneous Nerve Block and Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy Under General Anesthesia: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial

, , , , , , , & ORCID Icon show all
Pages 1651-1661 | Received 03 Jan 2024, Accepted 01 May 2024, Published online: 06 May 2024

Figures & data

Figure 1 Sonoanatomy of PENG block. The ultrasonic anatomy of a PENG block (a); Ultrasound anatomy of PENG block after local anesthetic injection (b). Arrow, needle pathway; Area outlined by an ellipse, local anesthetic dissemination.

Abbreviations: FV, femoral vein; FA, femoral artery; PT, psoas tendon; IPE, iliopubic eminence; IPM, iliopsoas muscle; AIIS, anterior inferior iliac spine.
Figure 1 Sonoanatomy of PENG block. The ultrasonic anatomy of a PENG block (a); Ultrasound anatomy of PENG block after local anesthetic injection (b). Arrow, needle pathway; Area outlined by an ellipse, local anesthetic dissemination.

Figure 2 Sonoanatomy of LFCN block. The needle tip was inserted into the fascia tunnel produced by the sartorius and tensor fascia lata. Arrow, needle pathway.

Abbreviations: SM, sartorius muscle; TFIM, tensor fascia lata; IPM, iliopsoas muscle.
Figure 2 Sonoanatomy of LFCN block. The needle tip was inserted into the fascia tunnel produced by the sartorius and tensor fascia lata. Arrow, needle pathway.

Figure 3 Sonoanatomy of FICB. Arrow, needle pathway.

Abbreviations: DCIA, deep circumflex iliac artery; IB, iliac bone; IM, iliac muscle; IOM, internal oblique muscle; SM, sartorius muscle.
Figure 3 Sonoanatomy of FICB. Arrow, needle pathway.

Table 1 Patients’ Demographic Characteristics

Figure 4 The CONSORT flow diagram.

Figure 4 The CONSORT flow diagram.

Table 2 Perioperative Medications and Recovery Indicator

Figure 5 Comparison of the muscular strength grading (MMT) (a), the VAS pain score (b) at static and (c) at dynamic, and (d) the quality of sleep (RCSQ) between the two groups. *P <0.05. The violin plots show medians and interquartile ranges. For group P in comparison with group F, the median (95% CI) difference in Pain static at 24 h after block (VAS) was 1 (1–2). For group P in comparison with group F, the median (95% CI) difference in Pain dynamic at 24 h after block (VAS) was 0 (0–0).

Figure 5 Comparison of the muscular strength grading (MMT) (a), the VAS pain score (b) at static and (c) at dynamic, and (d) the quality of sleep (RCSQ) between the two groups. *P <0.05. The violin plots show medians and interquartile ranges. For group P in comparison with group F, the median (95% CI) difference in Pain static at 24 h after block (VAS) was 1 (1–2). For group P in comparison with group F, the median (95% CI) difference in Pain dynamic at 24 h after block (VAS) was 0 (0–0).

Table 3 Postoperative Adverse Events in Two Group

Data Sharing Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.