Adductor Canal Block for Medial Compartment Knee Arthroplasty
NCT ID: NCT01818531
Last Updated: 2018-09-13
Study Results
Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.
View full resultsBasic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
PHASE4
150 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2013-04-30
2015-05-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Single Injection Adductor Canal Block Versus Continuous Adductor Canal Infusion for Total Knee Arthroplasty
NCT02991404
Continuous Adductor Canal Blocks Vs. Low Dose Femoral Nerve Blocks For Early Rehabilitation After Total Knee Arthroplasty
NCT02453321
Adductor Canal Block and Recovery After Total Knee Replacement Surgery
NCT02411149
Femoral Triangle Block: Early Mobilization and Postoperative Analgesia After Total Knee Arthroplasty
NCT03518450
Ultrasound-guided Adductor Canal Block for Total Knee Replacement
NCT02100579
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
DOUBLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Adductor canal block
Patients in this arm will receive an adductor canal block prior to undergoing a medial compartment knee arthroplasty.
Adductor canal block
Lumbar plexus block
Patients in this arm will receive a lumbar plexus block prior to undergoing a medial compartment knee arthroplasty.
Lumbar plexus block
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Adductor canal block
Lumbar plexus block
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Undergoing unilateral robotic-assisted (MAKOplasty) medial compartment knee arthroplasty at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center.
* Must give written informed consent for anesthesia including subarachnoid blockade and peripheral nerve blockade of both the lumbar plexus and adductor canal.
* Must consent to the performance of a sham block at the site to which they are not randomized.
* Must also be reliable to give accurate verbal pain scores postoperatively.
Exclusion Criteria
* History of opioid addiction or current chronic pain therapy for pain other than at the surgical site that is being treated with high-dose opioids (extended release opioids or \> 40mg oxycodone equivalents per day)
* Allergy to study medications
* Failure to adequately place either the adductor canal or lumbar plexus blocks.
* Patients who decline or have a contraindication to subarachnoid blockade will also be excluded from the study.
* Pregnancy.
18 Years
85 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Wake Forest University Health Sciences
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Daryl S Henshaw, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Wake Forest University Health Sciences
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Meek RM, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement: rationale and correct indications. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004 Apr;35(2):191-200. doi: 10.1016/S0030-5898(03)00115-9.
Riddle DL, Jiranek WA, McGlynn FJ. Yearly incidence of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 2008 Apr;23(3):408-12. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.04.012. Epub 2007 Nov 26.
Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):780-5. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00222.
GARDNER E. The innervation of the knee joint. Anat Rec. 1948 May;101(1):109-30. doi: 10.1002/ar.1091010111. No abstract available.
Davis JJ, Bond TS, Swenson JD. Adductor canal block: more than just the saphenous nerve? Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2009 Nov-Dec;34(6):618-9. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181bfbf00. No abstract available.
Horner G, Dellon AL. Innervation of the human knee joint and implications for surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Apr;(301):221-6.
Jenstrup MT, Jaeger 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 Mar;56(3):357-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2011.02621.x. Epub 2012 Jan 4.
Lund J, Jenstrup MT, Jaeger P, Sorensen AM, Dahl JB. Continuous adductor-canal-blockade for adjuvant post-operative analgesia after major knee surgery: preliminary results. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2011 Jan;55(1):14-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2010.02333.x. Epub 2010 Oct 29.
Farrar JT, Berlin JA, Strom BL. Clinically important changes in acute pain outcome measures: a validation study. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2003 May;25(5):406-11. doi: 10.1016/s0885-3924(03)00162-3.
Schuirmann DJ. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1987 Dec;15(6):657-80. doi: 10.1007/BF01068419.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
IRB00023002
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.