Skip Navigation LinksHome > February 2013 - Volume 118 - Issue 2 > Walking the Tightrope after Knee Surgery: Optimizing Postope...
Anesthesiology:
doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318279fa3a
Editorial Views

Walking the Tightrope after Knee Surgery: Optimizing Postoperative Analgesia while Minimizing Quadriceps Weakness

Ilfeld, Brian M. M.D., M.S.*; Hadzic, Admir M.D., Ph.D.

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

Photo: Thinkstock....
Photo: Thinkstock....
Image Tools
“[Dr. Jæger et al. provide] new information that may have potentially significant ramifications for walking the tightrope of optimizing analgesia while retaining quadriceps strength after major knee surgery.”
INTRODUCTION of ultrasound as a monitor of needle placement and disposition of the local anesthetic has had a significant impact on the clinical practice of peripheral nerve blocks. In particular, the ability to visualize the interaction between needle and anatomy in real time has led to an increase in the use and success of peripheral nerve blocks. Not surprisingly, ultrasound guidance has inspired the development of a multitude of new block techniques, previously unreliable because of the inability to position a needle tip consistently in a tissue plane or adjacent to sensory nerves. A few examples include transverse adductor canal, transversus abdominis plane, and pectoralis blocks; all enthusiastically discussed at regional anesthesia gatherings and online discussion forums. However, before widespread adoption, scrutinizing the novel approaches in high-quality, randomized, controlled trials is necessary to document a favorable risk–benefit ratio. For this reason, the study involving femoral nerve blocks published in this issue of ANESTHESIOLOGY by Jæger et al.1 is noteworthy.
Knee arthroplasty is associated with severe postoperative pain, despite treatment with oral and intravenous analgesics.2 Single-injection and/or continuous femoral nerve blocks are common analgesic modalities with well-documented outcome benefits.2,3 However, current block techniques and local anesthetic pharmacodynamics invariably affect motor fibers to the quadriceps muscle.4 The resulting quadriceps muscle weakness is undesirable and often leads to functional disability,5 which limits ambulation and rehabilitation,6 and is associated with an increased risk of falls.7,8 Unfortunately, strategies proposed to decrease femoral nerve block–induced quadriceps weakness while preserving proportionate analgesia have generally failed.4,9,10
More recently, the adductor canal block was proposed as an alternative analgesic modality to prevent quadriceps muscle weakness and gait instability.11 Theoretically, conduction block of the predominantly sensory branches of the femoral nerve contained in the adductor canal—an aponeurotic tunnel in the middle of third of the thigh—distal to the conventional femoral nerve block technique at the inguinal crease could avoid the undesired motor blockade while preserving analgesia. This concept is based on the anatomical fact that of the major nerves innervating the quadriceps femoris muscle, only the branch to the vastus medialis passes through the adductor canal. In addition, multiple sensory nerves that help innervate the knee pass through the same canal.12 Therefore, in contrast to a standard femoral nerve block proximal to the nerve’s division into multiple smaller nerves innervating the quadriceps muscle, injection of a local anesthetic into the adductor canal should hypothetically block only the branch to vastus medialis, sparing the function to the rest of the quadriceps muscle.
Indeed, in a randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial, repeated boluses of ropivacaine via a perineural catheter inserted into the adductor canal resulted in less dynamic pain and morphine consumption compared with saline boluses in patients with knee arthroplasty.13 Importantly, subjects receiving boluses of ropivacaine in the adductor canal demonstrated improved ambulation after 24 h, although the factors leading to this improvement remain unknown.13
The study published in this issue of ANESTHESIOLOGY by Jæger et al.1 provides new information that may have potentially significant ramifications for walking the tightrope of optimizing analgesia while retaining quadriceps strength after major knee surgery. Eleven healthy volunteers received either bilateral femoral or adductor canal single-injection nerve blocks (30 ml each), one with ropivacaine (0.1%) and the other with saline, administered in a randomized, double-masked fashion. On a subsequent day after block resolution, the subjects received the alternative/crossover peripheral nerve block (femoral or adductor canal), again with one side receiving ropivacaine and the other saline. Compared with baseline values, the adductor canal block reduced quadriceps muscle strength by 8%, versus 49% for the femoral nerve block. Of note, an 8% reduction with the adductor canal block is probably clinically irrelevant, given that a 10% side-to-side strength difference is common, yet functionally unnoticeable in healthy individuals.14,15 Equally noteworthy, the femoral nerve block resulted in decreased ambulation ability relative to the adductor canal block.
We applaud the important documentation by Jæger et al. of quadriceps preservation achieved with adductor canal block. However, we should avoid the temptation to overinterpret the data from healthy volunteers, and conclude that compared with a femoral nerve block, the adductor canal block is a superior technique to provide postoperative analgesia after knee arthroplasty. This study does not provide information on the relative postoperative analgesia imparted by these two approaches. Therefore, it is best viewed as producing data highlighting the reason (minimizing the motor-to-sensory block ratio) that further investigation is required.
Additional questions remain unanswered, such as the volume of local anesthetic to optimize the analgesic to motor block ratio. For example, 3 of 11 subjects in the study by Jæger et al. experienced more significant quadriceps muscle weakness relative to the remaining volunteers. A previous study documented that an injection of 30 ml fills the entire adductor canal; therefore, any excess volume may track proximally and reach additional nerves/muscle groups.11 Furthermore, the results of a single-injection adductor canal block cannot be extrapolated to a continuous perineural infusion because pharmacodynamics of local anesthetics vary considerably among anatomic locations and modes of introduction (e.g., single-injection vs. continuous infusion).9,16 The previously mentioned randomized, placebo-controlled trial of knee arthroplasty patients receiving repeated adductor canal ropivacaine boluses provides evidence that a catheter technique is superior to no regional anesthetic at all.13 However, what is now required is a trial directly comparing single-injection and continuous adductor canal and femoral nerve blocks in postsurgical patients.
History is replete with instances of medical “conclusions” based on sound theory, early laboratory evidence, and/or preliminary clinical results, which later proved either misleading or simply incorrect;17 and, in the interim, patients received suboptimal care.18 It is therefore imperative that we avoid the temptation to draw conclusions based on incomplete evidence, only to consequently discover our error at the expense of suboptimal analgesia. Therefore, additional clinical research is necessary to determine whether the data reported by Jæger et al. signal a transformation in postknee surgery analgesic management, or, rather, represent an important addition to our understanding of functional regional anesthesia, but without a prodigious impact on clinical practice. The same scrutiny should be applied to an ever-increasing number of technique innovations made possible with ultrasound guidance, but awaiting documentation of both benefits and risks.
Brian M. Ilfeld, M.D., M.S.,* Admir Hadzic, M.D., Ph.D.†
* Department of Anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, California. bilfeld@ucsd.edu. † College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York.
http://anesthesiology-network.com/forums/topic/143/adductor-canal-saphenous-nerve-b. Accessed September 5, 2012. Cited Here...
Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. Jæger P, Nielsen ZJK, Henningsen MH, Hilsted KL, Mathiesen O, Dahl JB. Adductor-canal-blockade versus femoral nerve block and quadriceps strength: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study in healthy volunteers. ANESTHESIOLOGY. 2013;118:409–15

2. Paul JE, Arya A, Hurlburt L, Cheng J, Thabane L, Tidy A, Murthy Y. Femoral nerve block improves analgesia outcomes after total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. ANESTHESIOLOGY. 2010;113:1144–62

3. Ilfeld BM. Continuous peripheral nerve blocks: A review of the published evidence. Anesth Analg. 2011;113:904–25

4. Charous MT, Madison SJ, Suresh PJ, Sandhu NS, Loland VJ, Mariano ER, Donohue MC, Dutton PH, Ferguson EJ, Ilfeld BM. Continuous femoral nerve blocks: Varying local anesthetic delivery method (bolus versus basal) to minimize quadriceps motor block while maintaining sensory block. ANESTHESIOLOGY. 2011;115:774–81

5. Mizner RL, Snyder-Mackler L. Altered loading during walking and sit-to-stand is affected by quadriceps weakness after total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2005;23:1083–90

6. Marino J, Russo J, Kenny M, Herenstein R, Livote E, Chelly JE. Continuous lumbar plexus block for postoperative pain control after total hip arthroplasty. A randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:29–37

7. Ilfeld BM, Duke KB, Donohue MC. The association between lower extremity continuous peripheral nerve blocks and patient falls after knee and hip arthroplasty. Anesth Analg. 2010;111:1552–4

8. Stevens JE, Mizner RL, Snyder-Mackler L. Quadriceps strength and volitional activation before and after total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. J Orthop Res. 2003;21:775–9

9. Bauer M, Wang L, Onibonoje OK, Parrett C, Sessler DI, Mounir-Soliman L, Zaky S, Krebs V, Buller LT, Donohue MC, Stevens-Lapsley JE, Ilfeld BM. Continuous femoral nerve blocks: Decreasing local anesthetic concentration to minimize quadriceps femoris weakness. ANESTHESIOLOGY. 2012;116:665–72

10. Brodner G, Buerkle H, Van Aken H, Lambert R, Schweppe-Hartenauer ML, Wempe C, Gogarten W. Postoperative analgesia after knee surgery: Acomparison of three different concentrations of ropivacaine for continuous femoral nerve blockade. Anesth Analg. 2007;105:256–62

11. Lund J, Jenstrup MT, Jæger P, Sørensen AM, Dahl JB. Continuous adductor-canal-blockade for adjuvant post-operative analgesia after major knee surgery: Preliminary results. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2011;55:14–9

12. Davis JJ, Bond TS, Swenson JD. Adductor canal block: More than just the saphenous nerve? Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2009;34:618–9

13. Jenstrup MT, Jæger P, Lund J, Fomsgaard JS, Bache S, Mathiesen O, Larsen TK, Dahl JB. Effects of adductor-canal-blockade on pain and ambulation after total knee arthroplasty: A randomized study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012;56:357–64

14. Ostenberg A, Roos E, Ekdahl C, Roos H. Isokinetic knee extensor strength and functional performance in healthy female soccer players. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 1998;8(5 Pt 1):257–64

15. Krishnan C, Williams GN. Evoked tetanic torque and activation level explain strength differences by side. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009;106:769–74

16. Vester-Andersen T, Christiansen C, Sørensen M, Kaalund-Jørgensen HO, Saugbjerg P, Schultz-Møller K. Perivascular axillary block II: Influence of injected volume of local anaesthetic on neural blockade. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1983;27:95–8

17. Egger M, Smith GD. Misleading meta-analysis. BMJ. 1995;310:752–4

18. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, LaCroix AZ, Kooperberg C, Stefanick ML, Jackson RD, Beresford SA, Howard BV, Johnson KC, Kotchen JM, Ockene JWriting Group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators. . Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: Principal results From the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288:321–33

© 2013 American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc.

Publication of an advertisement in Anesthesiology Online does not constitute endorsement by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc. or Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. of the product or service being advertised.
Login

Article Tools

Images

Share