Pericapsular Nerve Group (PENG) block versus fascia iliaca compartment (FI) block for hip surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bloqueio do Grupo do Nervo Pericapsular (BGNP) versus bloqueio do compartimento da fáscia ilíaca (FI) para cirurgia de quadril: uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise de ensaios clínicos randomizados
Priscila P. Andrade, Rafael A. Lombardi, Isabela R. Marques, Anna Carla Di Napoli Andrade e Braga, Beatrice R.S. Isaias, Nicholas E. Heiser
Abstract
Background
This study compares Fascia Iliaca compartment (FI) block and Pericapsular Nerve Group (PENG) block for hip surgery.
Methods
Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane were systematically searched in April 2022. Inclusion criteria were: Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs); comparing PENG block versus FI block for hip surgery; patients over 18 years of age; and reporting outcomes immediately postoperative. We excluded studies with overlapped populations and without a head-to-head comparison of the PENG block vs. FI block. Mean-Difference (MD) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were pooled. Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA) were performed to assess inconsistency. Quality assessment and risk of bias were performed according to Cochrane recommendations.
Results
Eight RCTs comprising 384 patients were included, of whom 196 (51%) underwent PENG block. After hip surgery, PENG block reduced static pain score at 12h post-surgery (MD = 0.61 mm; 95% CI 1.12 to -0.09; p = 0.02) and cumulative postoperative oral morphine consumption in the first 24h (MD = -6.93 mg; 95% CI -13.60 to -0.25; p = 0.04) compared with the FI group. However, no differences were found between the two techniques regarding dynamic and static pain scores at 6h or 24h post-surgery, or in the time to the first analgesic rescue after surgery.
Conclusion
The findings suggest that PENG block reduced opioid consumption in the first 24 h after surgery and reduced pain scores at rest at 12h post-surgery. Further research is needed to fully understand the effects of the PENG block and its potential benefits compared to FI block.
Keywords
Resumo
Introdução
Este estudo compara o bloqueio do compartimento da fáscia iliaca (FI) e o bloqueio do grupo do nervo pericapsular (BGNP) para cirurgia de quadril.
Métodos
Pubmed, Embase e Cochrane foram pesquisados sistematicamente em abril de 2022. Os critérios de inclusão foram: ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECR); comparando bloqueio GNP versus bloqueio FI para cirurgia de quadril; pacientes maiores de 18 anos; e relatar resultados imediatamente pós-operatórios. Excluímos estudos com populações sobrepostas e sem comparação direta entre o bloqueio GNP e o bloqueio FI. Diferença Média (MD) com Intervalos de Confiança (IC) de 95% foram agrupados. Análises Sequenciais de Ensaio (ASE) foram realizadas para avaliar a inconsistência. A avaliação da qualidade e do risco de viés foram realizadas de acordo com as recomendações da Cochrane.
Resultados
Foram incluídos oito ECRs compreendendo 384 pacientes, dos quais 196 (51%) foram submetidos ao bloqueio GNP. Após cirurgia de quadril, o bloqueio GNP reduziu o escore de dor estática 12h após a cirurgia (MD = 0,61 mm; IC 95% 1,12 a -0,09; p = 0,02) e o consumo cumulativo de morfina oral pós-operatória nas primeiras 24h (MD = -6,93 mg; IC 95% -13,60 a -0,25; p = 0,04) em comparação com o grupo FI. No entanto, não foram encontradas diferenças entre as duas técnicas em relação aos escores de dor dinâmica e estática às 6 horas ou 24 horas pós-operatória, ou no tempo até o primeiro resgate analgésico após a cirurgia.
Conclusão
Os resultados sugerem que o bloqueio GNP reduziu o consumo de opioides nas primeiras 24 horas após a cirurgia e reduziu os escores de dor em repouso 12 horas após a cirurgia. Mais pesquisas são necessárias para compreender completamente os efeitos do bloqueio GNP e seus benefícios potenciais em comparação com o bloqueio FI.
Cadastro PROSPERO
CRD42022339628
Palavras-chave
References
1. Opperer M, Danninger T, Stundner O, Memtsoudis SG. Perioperative outcomes and type of anesthesia in hip surgical patients: An evidence-based review. World J Orthop. 2014;5:336−43.
2. Guay J, Parker MJ, Griffiths R, Kopp S. Peripheral nerve blocks for hip fractures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;5:CD001159.
3. Wertheimer LG. The sensory nerves of the hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1952;34-A:477−87.
4. Gardner E. The innervation of the hip joint. Anat Rec. 1948;101:353−71.
5. Marhofer P, Nasel C, Sitzwohl C, Kapral S. Magnetic resonance imaging of the distribution of local anesthetic during the threein-one block. Anesth Analg. 2000;90:119−24.
6. Swenson JD, Davis JJ, Stream JO, Crim JR, Burks RT, Greis PE. Local anesthetic injection deep to the fascia iliaca at the level of the inguinal ligament: the pattern of distribution and effects on the obturator nerve. J Clin Anesth. 2015;27:652−7.
7. Giron-Arango L, Peng PWH, Chin KJ, Brull R, Perlas A. Pericapsu- lar Nerve Group (PENG) Block for Hip Fracture. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018;43:859−63.
8. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
9. Rosas S, Paco M, Lemos C, Pinho T. Comparison between the ¸ Visual Analog Scale and the Numerical Rating Scale in the perception of esthetics and pain. Int Orthod. 2017;15:543−60.
10. Opioid (Opiate) Equianalgesia Conversion Calculator ‒ ClinCalc. com [Internet]. [cited 2022 Oct 16]. Available from: https:// clincalc.com/Opioids/.
11. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:13.
12. Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.
13. Schunemann H, Bro € zek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A. GRADE handbook _ for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. The GRADE Working Group; 2013 Updated October 2013Available from guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook.
14. Danoff JR, Goel R, Sutton R, Maltenfort MG, Austin MS. How Much Pain Is Significant? Defining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for the Visual Analog Scale for Pain After Total Joint Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33:S71−5.
15. Laigaard J, Pedersen C, Rønsbo TN, Mathiesen O, Karlsen APH. Minimal clinically important differences in randomised clinical trials on pain management after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Br J Anaesth. 2021;126:1029−37.
16. TSA software (Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen) [Internet]. Available from: https://ctu.dk/.
17. Aliste J, Layera S, Bravo D, Jara A, Mu noz G, Barrientos C, et al. ~ Randomized comparison between pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block and suprainguinal fascia iliaca block for total hip arthroplasty. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2021;46:874−8.
18. Hua H, Xu Y, Jiang M, Dai X. Evaluation of Pericapsular Nerve Group (PENG) Block for Analgesic Effect in Elderly Patients with Femoral Neck Fracture Undergoing Hip Arthroplasty. J Healthc Eng. 2022;2022:7452716.
19. Jadon A, Mohsin K, Sahoo RK, Chakraborty S, Sinha N, Bakshi A. Comparison of supra-inguinal fascia iliaca versus pericapsular nerve block for ease of positioning during spinal anaesthesia: A randomised double-blinded trial. Indian J Anaesth. 2021;65:572−8.
20. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in metaanalysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629 −34.
21. Zheng J, Pan D, Zheng B, Ruan X. Preoperative pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block for total hip arthroplasty: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2022;47:155−60.
22. Desmet M, Vermeylen K, Van Herreweghe I, Carlier L, Soetens F, Lambrecht S, et al. A Longitudinal Supra-Inguinal Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block Reduces Morphine Consumption After Total Hip Arthroplasty. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017;42:327−33.
23. Kuchalik J, Magnuson A, Lundin A, Gupta A. Local in filtration analgesia or femoral nerve block for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. A randomized, double-blind study. Scand J Pain. 2017;16:223−30.
24. Morrison C, Brown B, Lin DY, Jaarsma R, Kroon H. Analgesia and anesthesia using the pericapsular nerve group block in hip surgery and hip fracture: a scoping review. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2021;46:169−75.
25. Chung CJ, Eom DW, Lee TY, Park SY. Reduced Opioid Consumption with Pericapsular Nerve Group Block for Hip Surgery: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Pain Res Manag. 2022;2022:6022380.
26. Pascarella G, Costa F, Del Buono R, Pulitano R, Strumia A, Piliego C, et al. Impact of the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block on postoperative analgesia and functional recovery following total hip arthroplasty: a randomised, observer-masked, controlled trial. Anaesthesia. 2021;76: 1492−8.
27. Mosaffa F, Taheri M, Manafi Rasi A, Samadpour H, Memary E, Mirkheshti A. Comparison of pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block with fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) for pain control in hip fractures: A double-blind prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res OTSR. 2022;108:103135.
28. Natrajan P, Bhat RR, Remadevi R, Joseph IR, Vijayalakshmi S, Paulose TD. Comparative Study to Evaluate the Effect of Ultrasound-Guided Pericapsular Nerve Group Block Versus Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block on the Postoperative Analgesic Effect in Patients Undergoing Surgeries for Hip Fracture under Spinal Anesthesia. Anesth Essays Res. 2021;15:285−9.
29. Shankar K, Ashwin AB, Rangalakshmi S. Comparative evaluation of peng block [pericapsular nerve group block] v/s fascia iliaca block[fib] for positioning and post operative analgesia prior to spinal anaesthesia for hip surgeries: Prospective randomized controlled trial. Indian J Anaesth. 2020;64:S37−8.
30. Farag A, Hendi NI, Diab RA. Does pericapsular nerve group block have limited analgesia at the initial post-operative period? Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Anesth. 2023;37:138−53.
31. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG, on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Analysing data and undertaking metaanalyses. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet]. 1st ed. Wiley; 2019 [cited 2023 Feb 27]. p. 241−84. Available from: https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119536604.ch10.
32. Bakshi SG, Rathod A, Salunkhe S. Influence of interpretation of pain scores on patients’ perception of pain: A prospective study. Indian J Anaesth. 2021;65:216−20.
33. Kumar P, Tripathi L. Challenges in pain assessment: Pain intensity scales. Indian J Pain. 2014;28:61.
34. Todd KH. Pain assessment and ethnicity. Ann Emerg Med. 1996;27(4):421−3.
35. Bahreini M, Jalili M, Moradi-Lakeh M. A comparison of three self-report pain scales in adults with acute pain. J Emerg Med. 2015;48:10−8.
36. Ahlers SJGM, van Gulik L, van der Veen AM, van Dongen HPA, Bruins P, Belitser SV, et al. Comparison of different pain scoring systems in critically ill patients in a general ICU. Crit Care Lond Engl. 2008;12:R15.
37. Scott J, Huskisson EC. Vertical or horizontal visual analogue scales. Ann Rheum Dis. 1979;38:560.
Submitted date:
11/22/2022
Accepted date:
07/16/2023
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email