Bauer Martin C R, Pogatzki-Zahn Esther M, Zahn Peter K
aClinic for Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, Palliative Medicine and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Bergmannsheil, Bochum bDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2014 Oct;27(5):501-6. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000000115.
Pain following total knee arthroplasty is a challenging task for healthcare providers. Concurrently, fast recovery and early ambulation are required to regain function and to prevent postoperative complications. Ideal postoperative analgesia provides sufficient pain relief with minimal opioid consumption and preservation of motor strength. Regional analgesia techniques are broadly used to answer these expectations. Femoral nerve blocks are performed frequently but have suggested disadvantages, such as motor weakness. The use of lumbar epidurals is questioned because of the risk of epidural hematoma. Relatively new techniques, such as local infiltration analgesia or adductor canal blocks, are increasingly discussed. The present review discusses new findings and weight between known benefits and risks of all of these techniques for total knee arthroplasty.
Femoral nerve blocks are the gold standard for total knee arthroplasty. The standard use of additional sciatic nerve blocks remains controversial. Lumbar epidurals possess an unfavourable risk/benefit ratio because of increased rate of epidural hematoma in orthopaedic patients and should be reserved for lower limb amputation; peripheral regional techniques provide comparable pain control, greater satisfaction and less risk than epidural analgesia. Although motor weakness might be greater with femoral nerve blocks compared with no regional analgesia, new data point towards a similar risk of falls after total knee arthroplasty with or without peripheral nerve blocks. Local infiltration analgesia and adductor canal blockade are promising recent techniques to gain adequate pain control with a minimum of undesired side-effects.
Femoral nerve blocks are still the gold standard for an effective analgesia approach in knee arthroplasty and should be supplemented (if needed) by oral opioids. An additional sciatic nerve blockade is still controversial and should be an individual decision. Large-scale studies are needed to reinforce the promising results of newer regional techniques, such as local infiltration analgesia and adductor canal block.
全膝关节置换术后疼痛对医疗服务提供者而言是一项具有挑战性的任务。同时,需要快速康复和早期活动以恢复功能并预防术后并发症。理想的术后镇痛应在最小化阿片类药物消耗和保持运动强度的情况下提供足够的疼痛缓解。区域镇痛技术被广泛应用以满足这些期望。股神经阻滞经常实施,但存在如运动无力等潜在缺点。由于硬膜外血肿风险,腰段硬膜外阻滞的应用受到质疑。相对较新的技术,如局部浸润镇痛或收肌管阻滞,正受到越来越多的讨论。本综述讨论了所有这些技术用于全膝关节置换术的新发现以及已知益处和风险之间的权衡。
股神经阻滞是全膝关节置换术的金标准。额外使用坐骨神经阻滞的标准做法仍存在争议。由于骨科患者硬膜外血肿发生率增加,腰段硬膜外阻滞的风险/效益比不佳,应仅用于下肢截肢;外周区域技术与硬膜外镇痛相比,能提供相当的疼痛控制、更高的满意度且风险更低。尽管与未进行区域镇痛相比,股神经阻滞可能导致更大的运动无力,但新数据表明,全膝关节置换术后无论是否进行外周神经阻滞,跌倒风险相似。局部浸润镇痛和收肌管阻滞是近期有前景的技术,能在最少不良副作用的情况下实现充分的疼痛控制。
股神经阻滞仍是膝关节置换术中有效镇痛方法的金标准,如有需要可辅以口服阿片类药物。额外的坐骨神经阻滞仍存在争议,应个体化决定。需要大规模研究来强化局部浸润镇痛和收肌管阻滞等较新区域技术的有前景的结果。