MedDataX Logo

Adductor Canal Vs Adductor Canal Plus SPANK Block for Postoperative Pain in Knee Arthroplasty Surgery

NCT ID: NCT04290442

Last Updated: 2020-11-24

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

WITHDRAWN

Clinical Phase

PHASE4

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2021-01-01

Study Completion Date

2021-06-01

Brief Summary

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

This study will prospectively investigate the efficacy of Adductor canal block with periarticular infiltration Vs Adductor canal block, Periarticluar infiltration and Sensory posterior articular nerve of the knee block in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. The study will aid in answering question whether SPANK block is an effective adjunct in preventing posterior knee pain without causing motor blockade.

Detailed Description

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

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA)is a common orthopedic surgical procedure. Optimal pain control is necessary for early recovery and discharge. TKA is considered one of the more painful surgical procedures, peripheral nerve blocks and multimodal analgesia are incorporated into clinical practice to provide patient comfort, decrease postoperative opioid requirement, facilitate early ambulation and enhance patient satisfaction.Adductor canal nerve block (ACB) and intraoperative periarticular infiltration (PAI) are routine clinical practice followed at our institute for postoperative pain control. Although ACB provided analgesia to peripatellar and anterior intra-articular aspect of knee joint, it does not relieve posterior knee pain which can be moderate to severe in intensity. Many techniques have been employed for posterior knee pain including sciatic nerve block and infiltration between popliteal artery and posterior capsule of the knee joint (IPACK) with limited success. Sciatic nerve block is considered gold standard but is rarely used due to associated motor weakness, which may delay ambulation and decrease participation in physical therapy postoperatively . In recent times IPACK block has gained popularity but there are concerns about local anesthetic injection close to surgical field and total dose of local anesthetic exceeding the recommended amount if combined with periarticular infiltration as is the practice at our institute.

SPANK block was described in 2015 by Kardash et al for posterior knee pain while sparing motor function. The block is performed at the level of femoral shaft above the femoral epicondyle, on the medial side of the leg, with needle positioned just superficial to posteromedial femoral periosteum and 15 ml of local anesthetic is injected, decreasing concerns for local anesthetic toxicity, and invasiveness close to surgical field as compared to IPACK block which requires 30 ml of local anesthetic.

Efficacy of SPANK block has been demonstrated as rescue analgesic for posterior knee pain after TKA, and a trial is underway to evaluate efficacy of ACB an SPANK block versus ACB alone \[5\].There is no literature evaluating benefit of SPANK block when added to ACB and PAI which is a standard practice.

If SPANK block proves to be effective in controlling posterior knee pain, with motor sparing effect it can help reduce postoperative opioid requirement, help achieve same day discharge and prove to be another small step towards fighting opioid epidemic.

Hence, we propose this study to evaluate added benefit of SPANK block to ACB and PAI with regards to postoperative pain control.

Conditions

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

Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee Anesthesia, Conduction Acute Pain

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

The study will be conducted as prospective, randomized, single blinded, parallel trial at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) Shadyside Hospital.
Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Outcome Assessors
At the office of acute pain management, one member of the research team will be responsible for providing the anesthesiologist in charge of performing the block with a sealed envelope. Each envelope will be labeled with a number corresponding to a matching number labeled on each patient binder. This envelope will contain the information regarding the block type based on randomization to be administered to the patient. Once the anesthesiologist knows which block he is going to administer, he will reseal the envelope and return it to the research team member. This process will allow only the anesthesiologist performing the block to have knowledge of the block type he or she is administering, keeping research team members blinded. The envelopes and binders will be kept by the principal investigator in a safe place and only reopened to be analyzed at the end of the study.

Study Groups

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

Adductor canal block (ACB)

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

adductor canal block

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

The block is performed in supine position under ultrasound guidance using 22 G Touhy needle advanced in plane and 15 cc of 0.5% Ropivacaine ( local anesthetic) with dexmedetomidine 20-30 mcg depending on the age of the patient is injected at midthigh level lateral to the femoral artery in adductor canal to provide sensory blockade to the anterior aspect of the knee.

Ropivacaine

Intervention Type DRUG

ropivacaine 0.5% will be use in the block

Adductor canal block plus SPANK block

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

adductor canal block

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

The block is performed in supine position under ultrasound guidance using 22 G Touhy needle advanced in plane and 15 cc of 0.5% Ropivacaine ( local anesthetic) with dexmedetomidine 20-30 mcg depending on the age of the patient is injected at midthigh level lateral to the femoral artery in adductor canal to provide sensory blockade to the anterior aspect of the knee.

SPANK

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

SPANK: The block is performed in supine position, using 22 G Touhy needle, under ultrasound guidance, needle is advanced in plane to posteromedial shaft of femur taking care to avoid popliteal artery, and 0.5% ropivacaine 15 cc, dexmedetomidine 20-30mcg and dexamethasone 4 mg is injected into inner thigh above the knee provide sensory block to posterior aspect of the knee.

Ropivacaine

Intervention Type DRUG

ropivacaine 0.5% will be use in the block

Interventions

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

adductor canal block

The block is performed in supine position under ultrasound guidance using 22 G Touhy needle advanced in plane and 15 cc of 0.5% Ropivacaine ( local anesthetic) with dexmedetomidine 20-30 mcg depending on the age of the patient is injected at midthigh level lateral to the femoral artery in adductor canal to provide sensory blockade to the anterior aspect of the knee.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

SPANK

SPANK: The block is performed in supine position, using 22 G Touhy needle, under ultrasound guidance, needle is advanced in plane to posteromedial shaft of femur taking care to avoid popliteal artery, and 0.5% ropivacaine 15 cc, dexmedetomidine 20-30mcg and dexamethasone 4 mg is injected into inner thigh above the knee provide sensory block to posterior aspect of the knee.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Ropivacaine

ropivacaine 0.5% will be use in the block

Intervention Type DRUG

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

Patients between the ages of 19 and 90 years old. BMI 18-45 ASA class I-II-III

Exclusion Criteria

Simultaneous bilateral TKA.

History of substance abuse.

BMI \>45.

Patients that did not received Intrathecal anesthesia.

Infection at the site of injection (either for spinal or PNB).

Pregnancy.

Non english speaking or inability to participate in the study.

Patients with coagulopathy or With INR \>1,5 the day of the surgery.

Pharmacologic coagulopathy: patients on xarelto, plavix, or any kind of "Blood Thinners".

Chronic steroid use: patients with consumption of steroid for more than 3 months.

Chronic pain: pain for more than 3 months.

Chronic opiate use : consumption of opioids for more than 3 months.
Minimum Eligible Age

19 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.

Bruce Ben-David

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

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

Bruce Ben-David

Professor

Responsibility Role SPONSOR_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

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

Bruce Ben-David, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

University of Pittsburgh

Locations

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

UPMC Shadyside Hospital

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Countries

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

United States

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Karlsen AP, Wetterslev M, Hansen SE, Hansen MS, Mathiesen O, Dahl JB. Postoperative pain treatment after total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2017 Mar 8;12(3):e0173107. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173107. eCollection 2017.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 28273133 (View on PubMed)

Vora MU, Nicholas TA, Kassel CA, Grant SA. Adductor canal block for knee surgical procedures: review article. J Clin Anesth. 2016 Dec;35:295-303. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.08.021. Epub 2016 Oct 11.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 27871547 (View on PubMed)

Sankineani SR, Reddy ARC, Eachempati KK, Jangale A, Gurava Reddy AV. Comparison of adductor canal block and IPACK block (interspace between the popliteal artery and the capsule of the posterior knee) with adductor canal block alone after total knee arthroplasty: a prospective control trial on pain and knee function in immediate postoperative period. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018 Oct;28(7):1391-1395. doi: 10.1007/s00590-018-2218-7. Epub 2018 May 2.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 29721648 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

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

STUDY19120105

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id