Secondary Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Evidence Basis for Regional Anesthesia in Ambulatory Arthroscopic Knee Surgery and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Part II

Adductor Canal Nerve Block—A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Sehmbi, Herman, MD, EDRA, EDAIC*,†; Brull, Richard, MD, FRCPC‡,§; Shah, Ushma Jitendra, DA, DNB, EDRA, EDAIC, FRCA‡,‖; El-Boghdadly, Kariem, FRCA‡,‖; Nguyen, David, MD; Joshi, Girish P., MBBS, MD, FFARCSI#; Abdallah, Faraj W., MD‡,**,††,‡‡

doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002570
Ambulatory Anesthesiology ANG Perioperative Management: Meta Analysis

BACKGROUND: Adductor canal block (ACB) has emerged as an effective analgesic regional technique for major knee surgeries in the last decade. Its motor-sparing properties make it particularly attractive for ambulatory knee surgery, but evidence supporting its use in ambulatory arthroscopic knee surgery is conflicting. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the analgesic effects of ACB for ambulatory arthroscopic knee surgeries.

METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases for randomized controlled trials examining the analgesic effects of ACB compared to control or any other analgesic modality. Both minor arthroscopic and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) surgeries were considered. Rest and dynamic pain scores, opioid consumption, opioid-related adverse effects, time to first analgesic request, patient satisfaction, quadriceps strength, and block-related complications were evaluated. Data were pooled using random-effects modeling.

RESULTS: Our search yielded 10 randomized controlled trials comparing ACB with placebo or femoral nerve block (FNB); these were subgrouped according to the type of knee surgery. For minor knee arthroscopic surgery, ACB provided reduced postoperative resting pain scores by a mean difference (95% confidence interval) of −1.46 cm (−2.03 to −0.90) (P < .00001), −0.51 cm (−0.92 to −0.10) (P = .02), and −0.48 cm (−0.93 to −0.04) (P = .03) at 0, 6, and 8 hours, respectively, compared to control. Dynamic pain scores were reduced by a mean difference (95% confidence interval) of −1.50 cm (−2.10 to −0.90) (P < .00001), −0.50 cm (−0.95 to −0.04) (P = .03), and −0.59 cm (−1.12 to −0.05) (P = .03) at 0, 6, and 8 hours, respectively, compared to control. ACB also reduced the cumulative 24-hour oral morphine equivalent consumption by −7.41 mg (−14.75 to −0.08) (P = .05) compared to control. For ACLR surgery, ACB did not provide any analgesic benefits and did not improve any of the examined outcomes, compared to control. ACB was also not different from FNB for these outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS: After minor ambulatory arthroscopic knee surgery, ACB provides modest analgesic benefits, including improved relief for rest pain, and reduced opioid consumption for up to 8 and 24 hours, respectively. The analgesic benefits of ACB are not different from placebo or FNB after ambulatory ACLR, suggesting a limited role of both blocks in this procedure. Paucity of trials dictates cautious interpretation of these findings. Future studies are needed to determine the role of ACB in the setting of local anesthetic instillation and/or graft donor-site analgesia.

From the *Department of Anesthesia, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

Department of Anesthesia, London Health Science Centre, London, Ontario, Canada

Department of Anesthesia, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

§Department of Anesthesia, Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Department of Anesthesia, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Department of Anesthesia, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

#Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas

**Department of Anesthesia, Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

††Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

the ‡‡ Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Published ahead of print 12 September 2017.

Accepted for publication September 12, 2017.

Funding: This work was supported by departmental funding. Both Drs R.B. and F.W.A. were supported by the Merit Award Program, Department of Anesthesia, University of Toronto.

Conflicts of Interest: See Disclosures at the end of the article.

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s website.

Reprints will not be available from the authors.

Address correspondence to Faraj W. Abdallah, MD, Department of Anesthesia, St Michael’s Hospital, 30 Bond St, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1W8, Canada. Address e-mail to

© 2019 International Anesthesia Research Society
You currently do not have access to this article

To access this article:

Note: If your society membership provides full-access, you may need to login on your society website