Analgesic Efficacy of Anterior Femoral, Genicular and Adductor Canal Nerve Block

NCT ID: NCT02548104

Last Updated: 2025-06-19

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

42 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2017-10-01

Study Completion Date

2023-11-06

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Recently, more distal approach to femoral nerve branches (saphenous) in the adductor canal in the medial compartment of the thigh have shown to provide comparable anesthesia and analgesia without quadriceps muscle weakness than traditional femoral nerve blocks (FNB) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Adductor canal block (ACB) has the unique advantage of providing localized analgesia to the peripatellar and intra-articular aspects of the knee joint without reducing the patient's ability to perform a straight leg raise. However, it does not adequately address the incisional pain component on the anterior surface of the knee innervated by anterior femoral cutaneous nerve. This pain may be improved by addition of the anterior femoral block (AFB). Additionally, the ACB does not provide analgesia to the posterior aspect of the knee, which is commonly moderate to severe after surgery. This pain may be decreased by addition of the genicular block, also known as the iPACK block (interspace between the popliteal artery and the capsule of the knee). There is no study that has evaluated the potentially analgesic benefits of the AFB or the iPACK block combined with ACB after TKA. Therefore, the investigators designed this randomized, prospective, and double-blinded study to assess our hypothesis that the addition of the AFB and/or iPACK block to the ACB will improve analgesic effects, decrease pain scores, deceased opioid requirement, and as well as facilitate early recovery and improve patient satisfaction with pain management in patient after TKA.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Postoperative pain associated with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can pose significant challenges in the recovery process of the patients undergoing this procedure. Traditionally, opioids have played a significant role in treating postoperative pain. It is well established that opioids are highly effective in relieving pain at rest, but are less effective in relieving pain associated with motion (e.g. ambulation, passive motion, and physical rehabilitation). Furthermore, the use of opioids for analgesia is associated with well-known side effects (such as: nausea, vomiting, constipation, ileus, bladder dysfunction, respiratory depression, pruritus, drowsiness, sedation, and allergic reaction). These opioid side effects, which range in severity, can significantly interfere with the rehabilitation process and contribute to a delay in hospital discharge.

Significant interest exists in the application of regional anesthetic techniques as an adjuvant to traditional opioid analgesics for pain control in patients after TKA. Specifically, the incorporation of femoral nerve blocks (FNB) as an adjunct in postoperative pain control has been widely reported in the anesthesia literature. While it has shown to be effective in post-operative pain control, it has introduced additional challenges for physical therapy and raised new concerns regarding the associated quadriceps muscle weakness. Until adequate quadriceps function returns, the need for knee immobilization devices to protect patients with traditional FNB from falls interferes with the early recovery process and the achievement of physical therapy milestones.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Pain, Postoperative

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

TRIPLE

Participants Caregivers Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Adductor canal block (ACB)

Group I Adductor canal block (ACB): 0.25% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine 30 ml and ultrasound-guided genicular (IPACK) with normal saline 15 ml

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

ACB

Intervention Type OTHER

ultrasound-guided ACB with 0.25% Bupivicaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine 30 ml and ultrasound-guided genicular (IPACK) with normal saline 15 ml

Adductor canal ACB + genicular (IPACK)

Group II Adductor canal block (ACB): 0.25% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine 30 ml and ultrasound-guided genicular (IPACK) with 0.25% Bupivicaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine 15 ml

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

ACB + iPACK

Intervention Type OTHER

ultrasound-guided ACB with 0.25% Bupivicaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine 30 ml and ultrasound-guided genicular (IPACK) with 0.25% Bupivicaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine 15 ml

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

ACB

ultrasound-guided ACB with 0.25% Bupivicaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine 30 ml and ultrasound-guided genicular (IPACK) with normal saline 15 ml

Intervention Type OTHER

ACB + iPACK

ultrasound-guided ACB with 0.25% Bupivicaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine 30 ml and ultrasound-guided genicular (IPACK) with 0.25% Bupivicaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine 15 ml

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

1. Age 18-90 yrs
2. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status 1-3
3. Either gender

Exclusion Criteria

1. Refusal to participate in the study
2. Age\< 18 yrs, or\> 90 yrs
3. General anesthesia
4. Bilateral TKA, or revision of TKA
5. Contraindications to regional blockage including but not limited to:

* Patient refusal to regional blockade
* Infection at the site of needle insertion
* Systemic infection
* Bleeding diathesis or coagulopathy (as diagnosed by history or laboratory evaluation)
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

90 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Jun Tang, MD

Department of anesthesiology

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Roya Yumul, M.D.,PhD.

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Department of Anesthesiology

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Cedars Sinai Medical Center

Los Angeles, California, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

CSMCPro00034213

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

NCT02167282

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: nct_alias

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

High Versus Low Adductor Canal Block
NCT04155983 UNKNOWN PHASE4