Additional intraoperative subpectoral plane block vs conventional pain control: A comparison of shoulder movement in patients with mastectomy.

PURPOSE: Shoulder pain is common among mastectomy patients, with limiting shoulder mobility and negatively affecting their quality of life. Pectoral nerve blocks (PECs) have demonstrated efficacy in providing postoperative analgesia. We hypothesized that these nerve blocks could improve shoulder movement in patients undergoing mastectomy. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled trial enrolled female participants diagnosed with breast cancer and scheduled for mastectomy. Participants were randomly assigned to either the conventional analgesia group or the intervention group. In the intervention group, a PECs II block was applied prior to skin closure following a mastectomy. This study's primary outcome was the assessment of shoulder movement ratios in 5 different positions (forward elevation, external rotation, arm abduction, internal rotation, and cross-body adduction), which were recorded before surgery, at 24-h, 48-h, and 72-h intervals postoperatively, with follow-up at 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, and 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 59 participants were included in the final analysis. Patients who underwent mastectomy with PECs II block exhibited better shoulder movement in terms of external rotation and arm abduction from the early post-surgery up to 6 months postoperatively. Shoulder forward elevation also showed superior gains during the early postoperative period, with statistical significance observed after 1 month following the surgery. However, no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of internal rotation and adduction movements of the shoulder. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to conventional analgesia, intraoperative pectoral nerve block under direct vision enhances shoulder mobility in forward elevation, external rotation, and arm abduction after mastectomy in breast cancer patients.

Effect of multiple analgesic pathways including local infiltration analgesia, peripheral nerve blocks, and intrathecal morphine for controlling pain after total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: We questioned whether the triple analgesic pathways procedure via local infiltration analgesia (LIA), peripheral nerve blocks, and intrathecal morphine (ITM) is superior to LIA only for controlling pain after Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: This retrospective study included 192 primary TKA patients. Group A (76 patients) received LIA only, Group B (61 patients) had ITM, adductor canal block and LIA, while Group C (55 patients) received ITM, femoral nerve block and LIA. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to compare visual analog scales (VAS) for pain intensity, total amount of morphine consumption (TMC), angle of knee flexion, and length of hospital stay (LHS). RESULTS: Group A showed significantly higher VAS than Group B at 12 h (4.27 ± 2.70 vs 2.42 ± 2.35) and 18 h (4.24 ± 2.35 vs 2.18 ± 2.02), and significantly higher than Group C at 6 h (3.46 ± 3.07 vs 0.60 ± 1.50), 12 h (4.27 ± 2.70 vs 0.89 ± 1.48), and 18 h postoperative (4.24 ± 2.35 vs 1.82 ± 2.18). However, the VAS of Group C and B converged to equalize with Group A after 12 and 18 h, respectively. The TMC at 48 h postoperative of Group A was higher than that of Group B (p < 0.01). Nevertheless, there was no difference between groups in terms of knee flexion and LHS, except the LHS of Group B was longer than Group A (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Triple analgesic pathways could provide a better initial analgesic profile. However, the pain seems to be rebound after resolution of nerve block and ITM, with potentially longer LHS.

Adductor Canal Block Combined with Interspace between the Popliteal Artery and Capsule of the Knee (iPACK) versus Periarticular Injection for Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Background: The combination of the adductor canal block (ACB) and the infiltration of anesthetic solution into the interspace between the popliteal artery and capsule of the knee (iPACK) has become increasingly used to augment rapid recovery protocols in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, its efficacy in comparison with periarticular anesthetic injection (PAI) alone has yet to be evaluated. Hence, we conducted a retrospective study to compare PAI and ACB + iPACK for controlling pain after TKA. Methods: Propensity scores, incorporating American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, body mass index, age, and sex, were used to match the ACB + iPACK group with the PAI group. All patients received the identical surgical technique and postoperative care. Outcome measures were visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, morphine consumption, knee flexion angle, straight leg raising (SLR), postoperative nausea vomiting (PONV), and length of stay (LOS) after the surgery. Results: After matching by propensity score, there were 49 patients with comparable demographic data in each group. The VAS and morphine requirements of the PAI and ACB + iPACK groups were not different during the first 48 hours after TKA. At 72 hours postoperatively, the VAS of the ACB + iPACK was 0.97 higher than that of the PAI group (p = 0.020). Knee flexion angle, SLR, PONV, and LOS were not significantly different between groups. No procedure-related complications were identified in either group. Conclusions: The anesthesiologist-administered ACB + iPACK was as effective as surgeon-administered PAI in controlling pain in the first 48 hours after TKA. However, the ACB + iPACK group had higher intensity of pain than did the PAI group at 72 hours after TKA.