Next Article in Journal
Engaging Physicians and Systems to Improve Hepatitis C Virus Testing in Baby Boomers
Next Article in Special Issue
An Approach to Improve the Effectiveness of the Video-Assisted Intubating Stylet Technique for Tracheal Intubation: A Case Series Report
Previous Article in Journal
A Deep Learning-Based Framework for Retinal Disease Classification
Previous Article in Special Issue
Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Injection of Botulinum Toxin, Ozone, and Lidocaine in Piriformis Syndrome
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Motor-Sparing Effect of Adductor Canal Block for Knee Analgesia: An Updated Review and a Subgroup Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Based on a Corrected Classification System

1
Department of Anesthesiology, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei 11031, Taiwan
2
Department of Anesthesiology, Tri-Service General Hospital and National Defense Medical Center, Taipei 11490, Taiwan
3
Department of Neurosurgery, Chung-Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung 40201, Taiwan
4
School of Medicine, Chung-Shan Medical University, Taichung 40201, Taiwan
5
Department of Anesthesiology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei 100225, Taiwan
6
Division of Anesthesiology, Hualien Armed Forces General Hospital, Hualien 97144, Taiwan
7
Department of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei 11490, Taiwan
8
Dianthus MFM Clinic Taoyuan, Dianthus MFM Center, Taoyuan 33083, Taiwan
9
Department of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan
10
Center for Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung 40201, Taiwan
11
Department of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung 40201, Taiwan
12
Department of Anesthesiology, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung 40201, Taiwan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2023, 11(2), 210; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11020210
Submission received: 8 December 2022 / Revised: 28 December 2022 / Accepted: 31 December 2022 / Published: 10 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue All-Time Paradigm Shift of Anesthesia Management and Pain Medicine)

Abstract

:
Objective: Discrepancies in the definition of adductor canal block (ACB) lead to inconsistent results. To investigate the actual analgesic and motor-sparing effects of ACB by anatomically defining femoral triangle block (FTB), proximal ACB (p-ACB), and distal ACB (d-ACB), we re-classified the previously claimed ACB approaches according to the ultrasound findings or descriptions in the corresponding published articles. A meta-analysis with subsequent subgroup analyses based on these corrected results was performed to examine the true impact of ACB on its analgesic effect and motor function (quadriceps muscle strength or mobilization ability). An optimal ACB technique was also suggested based on an updated review of evidence and ultrasound anatomy. Materials and Methods: We systematically searched studies describing the use of ACB for knee surgery. Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched with the exclusion of non-English articles from inception to 28 February 2022. The motor-sparing and analgesic aspects in true ACB were evaluated using meta-analyses with subsequent subgroup analyses according to the corrected classification system. Results: The meta-analysis includes 19 randomized controlled trials. Compared with the femoral nerve block group, the quadriceps muscle strength (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.33, 95%-CI [0.01; 0.65]) and mobilization ability (SMD = −22.44, 95%-CI [−35.37; −9.51]) are more preserved in the mixed ACB group at 24 h after knee surgery. Compared with the true ACB group, the FTB group (SMD = 5.59, 95%-CI [3.44; 8.46]) has a significantly decreased mobilization ability at 24 h after knee surgery. Conclusion: By using the corrected classification system, we proved the motor-sparing effect of true ACB compared to FTB. According to the updated ultrasound anatomy, we suggested proximal ACB to be the analgesic technique of choice for knee surgery. Although a single-shot ACB is limited in duration, it remains the candidate of the analgesic standard for knee surgery on postoperative day 1 or 2 because it induces analgesia with less motor involvement in the era of multimodal analgesia. Furthermore, data from the corrected classification system may provide the basis for future research.

1. Introduction

Femoral nerve block (FNB) has previously been the mainstay for postoperative analgesia following knee surgery for years [1]. However, quadriceps weakness, which is unfavorable for rehabilitation and might delay early ambulation, is a major concern of FNB [2]. Recently, an alternative, adductor canal block (ACB), has been introduced as a motor-sparing nerve block for knee surgery and gained attention from anesthesiologists and orthopedists. ACB has been claimed to provide adequate knee analgesia mainly by blocking the saphenous nerve (SN). As such, it could provide some benefits, including improved mobility and reduced risk of falls [3,4,5,6,7,8,9].
Previously, SN block approached with surface landmarks has been established for analgesia for procedures below the knee [10]. Because of its small size and the lack of a motor component in the SN, conventional SN block has inconsistent success. Then, it has evolved to ultrasound guidance to aid in precision and avoid unintentional puncture of major vessels [11,12]. Manickam et al. described the ultrasound-guided SN block in the adductor canal with the needle entry point at 2–3 cm proximal to the adductor hiatus [13]. Lund et al. introduced ACB as halfway between the iliac spine and the patella [8]. Until now, there have been debates about the nomenclature and techniques regarding ACB.
Recently, there has been growing evidence indicating that ACB is as effective as FNB in providing postoperative analgesia following knee surgery. Many studies revealed that ACB could preserve better quadriceps strength and improve mobilization ability without compromising pain control [8,14,15]. ACB also reduced the risk of falls compared with FNB [16,17,18]. However, other studies demonstrated that FNB had denser analgesia, less analgesic requirement, and greater satisfaction compared with ACB [19]. Additionally, there was no significant difference in quadriceps strength deficits after FNB or ACB [20,21,22].
These discrepancies might result from the different approaches of ACB, or more precisely, from the non-unified definition of ACB. Landmark guidance might risk injection outside the anatomical adductor canal. While searching for studies on ACB, there are many ways to perform ACB according to the injection site, including anatomically defined femoral triangle (FT) and proximal or distal adductor canal [23,24,25,26,27]. In several studies, ACB has been performed at the midpoint of the thigh (the midpoint between the anterior superior iliac spine and the base of the patella) [8,9,15,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. However, some researchers have challenged this definition because the midpoint of the thigh most likely falls within the FT [36]. Although the FT is connected to the adductor canal, the nerves to block differ between these two structures, which may cause clinically meaningful differences [37,38,39]. It is reasonable that the block level can affect the analgesic outcomes, mobilization, and motor-sparing effect. Hence, anatomically classifying published ACB studies before comparing the analgesic effects or other outcomes among different approaches is important. In this study, we will describe the relevant anatomy of ACB, clarify the definition of ACB, develop a nomenclature system to include various approaches, investigate the analgesic and motor-sparing effects by meta-analysis and subgroup analyses based on this corrected classification, and detail the possible complications.

1.1. Applied Anatomy

The relevant anatomy is shown in Figure 1. A comprehensive understanding of the anatomy of the FT and adductor canal is necessary to examine the clinical effects of ACB.
(A) The boundaries of the FT and the AC. The base, the medial border, and the lateral border of the FT are the inguinal ligament, medial margin of the adductor longus muscle, and the medial margin of the sartorius muscle. The AC extends from the apex of the FT, defined as the intersection between the medial border of the sartorius muscle and the medial border of the adductor longus muscle. The AC ends at the adductor hiatus of the adductor magnus. (B). The contents of the FT and the AC. The femoral neurovascular bundle is in the FT at the inguinal ligament level and dives subsartorially at the distal FT level (the level of mid-way between ASIS and the patella base). SN is anterolateral to FA and lies between STM and VMM. NVM is lateral to SN, and also lies between STM and VMM. In the proximal AC, FV is posterior to FA. The femoral vein becomes lateral to the femoral artery in the distal AC. VAM extends from the VMM, under STM to the ALM and AMM. SN is anterolateral to FA in the proximal AC. SN crosses the femoral artery anteriorly from a lateral to medial direction. SN pierces VAM at mid-AC. In distal AC, SN goes medially. It lies above VAM and between STM and AMM.
Cross-sectional anatomy of (a). Distal FT (the level of mid-way between ASIS and the patella base). The anterior, medial, and lateral borders are STM, ALM, and VMM. NVM lies between the STM and VMM and lateral to the SN. SN is anterolateral to FA. FV is posterior to FA. (b). Proximal AC (p-AC), the anteromedial border is STM, the anterolateral border is the VMM, and the posteromedial border is the ALM. The medial border of STM meets the medial border of ALM. VAM extends from the VMM, under STM to the tendons of ALM. NVM lies outside the AC in a fascial on VMM. SN is antero-lateral to FA. FV is posterior to the femoral artery. (c). Mid AC, the ALM is replaced by AMM posteromedially. SN penetrates the VAM and lies superficial to VAM adjacent to the descending genicular artery. (d). Distal AC (d-AC), the posteromedial border is AMM. VAM connects the VMM and the AMM. The femoral vessels dive deeply and leaves the AC through adductor hiatus. SN lies above the VAM between the STM and AMM and crosses the AC from the anterior to the medial side.

1.1.1. Femoral Triangle (FT, Scarpa’s Triangle)

The FT is an area in the proximal part of the anterior thigh. The base of the triangle is the inguinal ligament. The medial border is the medial margin of the adductor longus muscle, and the lateral border is the medial margin of the sartorius muscle. The roof is the fascia lata. The floor is formed medially by the adductor longus and the pectineus and laterally by the iliopsoas muscle. The apex of the triangle is continuous with the proximal end of the adductor canal [37,38,40]. The FT contains neurovascular structures, from lateral to medial, including the femoral nerve, femoral vessels, and lymphatics. The femoral neurovascular bundle is in the FT at the inguinal ligament level and dives subsartorially at the distal FT level (the level of mid-way between ASIS and the patella base) [41].
The femoral nerve divides into branches in the FT. The motor branches supply the quadriceps femoris and the hip flexor, whereas the sensory branches innervate the anterior and medial aspect of the thigh (the medial and intermediate cutaneous nerve of thigh), the anteromedial side of the knee (SN, nerve to vastus medialis (NVM)), and the medial side of the leg and foot (SN) [42]. At the distal FT level, the SN and NVM lie subsartorially and outside the FT [41].

1.1.2. Adductor Canal (Hunter’s Canal)

The adductor canal (AC) is an aponeurotic tunnel in the thigh, deep to the sartorius, and serves as a passageway that allows structures to move from the FT to the popliteal fossa. It extends from the apex of the FT, defined as the intersection between the medial border of the sartorius muscle and the medial border of the adductor longus muscle, to the adductor hiatus of the adductor magnus. The boundaries of the AC are the sartorius anteromedially, the vastus medialis anterolaterally, and the adductor longus (in the upper part) or the adductor magnus (in the lower part) posteromedially [36,41]. The roof of the entire AC is the vastoadductor membrane (VAM), and the space between the sartorius muscle and VAM is called the subsartorial compartment [36,41,42,43,44,45]. Superficial to the VAM is the subsartorial plexus, supplying the medial part of the knee [41]. The AC is also known as the subsartorial canal or Hunter’s canal [42]. However, the term “subsartorial canal” may cause confusion. Subsartorial space is a space under the sartorius muscle and extends beyond the vastoadductor membrane [41]. The subsartorial space is distinct from the true adductor canal. We should not regard the “subsartorial canal” as the true adductor canal because the term would cause misunderstanding.
In the AC, the nerve without conflict is the SN. The SN enters the AC anterolateral to the femoral artery and crosses the femoral artery anteriorly from the lateral to the medial direction [46]. In the mid-to-distal third of the AC, the SN penetrates the VAM and leaves the canal with the saphenous branch of the descending genicular artery. The SN is a sensory nerve, supplying the anteroinferior and medial aspects of the knee and the medial side of the leg and ankle [11,47].
Other structures, for example, the NVM, the medial cutaneous nerve of the thigh, and the anterior or posterior branch of the obturator nerve have been reported to pass through the AC; however, the precise locations still remain controversial [3,7,36,46,48,49]. In an anatomic study, Burckett et al. reported that the NVM descends superficially to the VAM; other studies found that the NVM lies inside the fascia, covering the vastus medialis outside the AC [41,46,50,51]. The NVM not only gives branches to the vastus medialis but also innervates the anteromedial capsule superior to the patella and the medial retinaculum [46,52,53]. Therefore, the NVM is also a vital nerve to target when treating pain for patients undergoing surgery involving the medial region of the knee and the distal portion of the femur.

1.1.3. Knee Sensory Innervation

The sensory innervation of the knee can be divided into the anterior and posterior groups. In the anterior group, the cutaneous layer is supplied by the medial femoral cutaneous nerve, the infrapatellar branch of the SN medially, and the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve and the common peroneal nerve laterally. The anterior knee joint capsule is supplied by the branches of the NVM, intermedialis, and lateralis. Furthermore, the genicular nerves, common peroneal nerve, and recurrent peroneal nerve terminate in the anterior aspect of the knee capsule [41,53,54].
The posterior group consists of articular branches from the posterior division of the obturator nerve and the tibial nerves, supplying the posterior knee capsule [55].

1.2. Corrected Classification System

A study discussing the precise location of the AC, which involved healthy volunteers, was published in 2017 [36]. However, after that, some studies still defined the mid-thigh needle entry point as one of the approaches of ACB. In addition to the inconsistent ACB approaches, the definition of “mid-thigh” also varies; for example, midway between the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) and patella, midway between the greater trochanter and patella, and midway between the inguinal ligament and patella. There is still no consensus on its terminology after a rapid increase in the number of studies. The possible reason for the divergent ACB definition is that some studies defined it according to the surface landmark in the early period, and some studies defined it according to sonoanatomy recently (Table 1). Therefore, we provided a corrected classification system with a unified nomenclature to anatomically categorize the various existing ACB approaches into three groups: femoral triangle block (FTB), proximal ACB (p-ACB), and distal ACB (d-ACB). This classification is according to the anatomy of the AC and the FT.

1.3. Femoral Triangle Block (FTB)

FTB refers to an injection at the midway between the ASIS and the base of the patella. Its injection site is subsartorial and anterolateral to the femoral artery and proximal to the apex of the FT, which blocks the SN, the NVM, and the medial femoral cutaneous nerve [41].
The advantages of FTB include that local anesthetic administration may be proximal enough to reliably block the SN and NVM and provide a better analgesic effect while minimizing the spread to the popliteal fossa [46]. Its disadvantages include that local anesthetic may spread to the proximal FT and involve the femoral nerve branches, which may cause quadriceps weakness.
During literature research, the ACB technique has been described as an injection at the “mid-thigh” level in many randomized controlled trials (RCTs). As early as 2014, Bendtsen et al. stated that using the term “ACB” with the mid-thigh needle entry point was a misnomer [26,43,57]. In 2017, a study involving healthy volunteers proved that the midpoint of the thigh, defined as halfway between the ASIS and the base of the patella, mostly resides in the FT [36]. The mean distance from the midpoint of the ASIS and patella to the proximal end of the AC is 4.6 cm [27,36,41]. However, there had been other descriptions of the “mid-thigh” level regarding ACB, such as the midpoint between the greater trochanter and patella, or the midpoint between the inguinal ligament and the patella. Most studies had not described the mid-thigh level clearly. Without a unified definition of the mid-thigh level in these studies, whether the block level was in the FT or in the AC cannot be determined. Hence, the results of the existing studies on ACB should be explained carefully.

1.4. Proximal ACB (p-ACB)

Instead of using surface landmarks to determine the injection site of ACB, ultrasound guidance is used to better identify the location of the AC. Under ultrasound guidance, the apex of the FT is identified as the intersection of the medial borders of the sartorius muscle and the adductor longus muscle. This apex is the proximal end of the AC. The distal end of the AC is where the femoral artery becomes deep and passes through the AC hiatus on its way to the popliteal fossa [46,58]. p-ACB targets the AC at its entrance just distal to the apex of the FT.
The potential advantages of p-ACB include a comparable analgesic effect with that of FNB or FTB without increasing quadriceps muscle weakness following knee surgery. Some studies have recently discussed the clinical effect of p-ACB with a precise location under ultrasound guidance. We will discuss the clinical efficacy of p-ACB through a systemic review and meta-analysis in the paragraph below.
p-ACB may have a more significant analgesic effect than d-ACB, whereas it also likely preserves quadriceps motor function. This description can be demonstrated by the cadaveric studies that have found that a dye injected into the proximal AC can spread to the SN throughout the AC and the branches of NVM, including the posteromedial branch and intra-articular branches. The posteromedial branches of the NVM, which terminate as the superior medial genicular nerve and the branch to the vastus medialis obliquus, innervate the anteromedial knee joint and muscles. Even though the posteromedial branches of the NVM are involved, the anterior branches of the NVM were not stained, which would likely preserve greater vastus medialis activity, resulting in the quadriceps motor-sparing feature of the ACB [50,58,59]. In contrast, the NVM was barely stained by dye injection in d-ACB because of the two layers of the distal roof of the AC (VAM and the aponeurosis of vastus medialis obliquus). Containing the posteromedial branches of the NVM makes p-ACB a more effective pain control technique for knee surgery [52,59].

1.5. Distal ACB (d-ACB)

The point of injection in d-ACB is approximately 1–2 cm proximal to the adductor hiatus. This injectate at the distal part of the AC may spread to the popliteal fossa and block the popliteal plexus, which is formed by the tibial nerve and posterior obturator nerve, innervating the posterior aspect of the knee. A cadaveric study showed that the 10 mL of injection in the distal part of the AC spread into the popliteal fossa [58]. The possibility of local anesthetics spreading to the SN and the popliteal fossa implies that d-ACB provides analgesia to the posterior knee compartment, but also causes foot drop [14,60,61]. Studies comparing different injection locations for ACB (p-ACB and d-ACB) in terms of analgesic and motor-sparing effects will be discussed in the following section (see Section 3.2 The effect of p-ACB versus d-ACB).

1.6. ACB Techniques

Ultrasound guidance is now considered the gold standard for peripheral nerve blocks [62]. Ultrasound-guided FTB, p-ACB, and d-ACB were described according to the unified nomenclature systems. Usually, a high-frequency linear transducer is adequate for most ACB or FTB. To optimize sonoanatomy visualization, appropriately rotating and tilting the probe and adequate pressure are recommended. Based on the physical ergonomics, keeping the eye, hand, needle, probe, and ultrasound instrument all in the same plane facilitates needle visualization [63]. The patient is placed in the supine position with the hip externally rotated and the knee slightly flexed (Figure 2A). This external rotation can make the SN lie lateral to the femoral artery in the ultrasound image. Thus, the needle trajectory is shortened without passing through the vastus medialis muscle. Operators stand on the same side and lateral to the leg, hold the needle with the dominant hand, and position the ultrasound machine on the opposite side of the patient (Figure 2B) [64]. Following physical ergonomics can protect operators from injuries, improve needle visualization, and reduce the risk of patient injury. After patient positioning, we suggest the scanning steps as follows:
  • Mark the location midway between the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) and the base of the patella. Place the transducer transversely on the marker of the thigh to obtain a short-axis view. The femoral vessels will be identified beneath the sartorius muscle. The artery can be distinguished by color doppler flow imaging or by compression sign (Figure 3A,B).
  • Slide the probe along the medial border of the sartorius muscle to visualize the intersection of the medial borders of the sartorius muscle and the adductor longus muscle. This point means the start of the AC (Figure 3C–F).
  • Slide the probe caudally until the femoral artery goes deep into the echogenic adductor magnus tendon and then passes through the adductor hiatus. This point is the end of the AC (Figure 3G,H).
The position of the probe of ultrasound-guided FTB and ACB, and the matching ultrasound images are shown in Figure 3.

1.7. Ultrasound-Guided FTB

  • After identifying the AC, place the probe halfway between the base of the patella and the ASIS for a transverse view. The superficial femoral artery (SFA) is identified underneath the sartorius muscle. The SN is usually visible as a hyperechoic structure anterolateral to the artery typically [7,65].
  • Once the neurovascular bundle is seen, adjust the probe so that the bundle is on the medial side of the ultrasound screen. The needle is placed lateral to the SN and femoral artery using an in-plane technique. A periarterial injection of local anesthetics is performed at this level, involving the SN, NVM, and medial and intermediate femoral cutaneous nerves [41]. It may also affect the motor branches of the femoral nerve [7].

1.8. Ultrasound-Guided p-ACB

  • At the distal FT, move the probe caudally about 1–2 cm beyond the apex of the FT. At this level, SN can usually be visualized laterally to the SFA with the thigh in external rotation, and injection between the SFA and SN helps achieve a successful ACB with 2–5 mL of local anesthetics.

1.9. Ultrasound-Guided d-ACB

As for d-ACB, (7) place the probe in the distal third of the thigh, where the SFA is also seen beneath the sartorius muscle. Then, the artery is identified diving posteriorly through the adductor hiatus when tracking down using the probe. [13] The point of injection of d-ACB is approximately 1–2 cm proximal to the adductor hiatus.

1.10. Systematic Review of RCTs on the Divergent Definition of ACB

Systematic review and meta-analyses have compared mixed ACB (including both with and without clear disclosure of the anatomical definition of the AC) with FNB in knee surgery; however, there are still no conclusive results regarding the motor-sparing effects and analgesic effects without applying a corrected classification system. Some studies showed that patients receiving ACB or FNB have similar clinical efficacy, including pain scores and opioid consumption. Meanwhile, patients receiving ACB have better quadriceps strength, mobilization, and ambulation [66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75]. Some systematic reviews and meta-analyses have compared ACB with FNB in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), and the results are similar to those shown in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) [76,77]. In contrast, Ramizadeh et al. showed no differences in quadriceps muscle strength between ACB and FNB at 24 h after surgery [19], and three studies have reported no significant difference in quadriceps muscle strength at 48 h after surgery [78,79,80].
Among several meta-analyses comparing ACB with FNB, one of the most important limitations is the lack of a uniform block level among ACB approaches, which may cause considerable heterogeneity and unreliable results. Based on the studies on the location of the AC from Wong et al. [36], the biases observed in previous studies misinterpreting mid-thigh injection as ACB make the motor-sparing effect of “true” ACB to be spuriously underestimated, and the analgesic effect of “true” ACB to be spuriously overestimated.
In this study, we distinguish FTB, p-ACB, and d-ACB by analyzing the block location according to the ultrasound description in the index studies previously claimed by the author to be ACB. Based on this corrected classification system, we reclassified these previously-claimed ACB approaches into FTB, p-ACB, and d-ACB, and conducted a meta-analysis to survey the clinical effect of these three techniques. Regarding the fact that the injection site of FTB is proximal to true ACB, and it may involve the medial femoral cutaneous nerve, SN, and NVM, our hypotheses are as follows: (1) the motor-sparing effect of “mixed ACB with the exclusion of FTB” is more significant than that of FNB; (2) d-ACB may have less analgesic effect than p-ACB; (3) true ACB provides quadriceps motor-sparing effect and less analgesic effect than FTB.

2. Materials and Methods

Our systematic review was registered with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews of the National Institute for Health Research (accessed on 30 October 2020. CRD42020219432). This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines [81].

2.1. Search Strategy

Databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase, were searched using the following terms: “Adductor canal” or “Adductor canal block” to identify potentially eligible studies evaluating the efficacy of ACB versus other analgesia methods in patients undergoing knee surgery until February 2022 with the exclusion of non-English studies.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria:
(1)
Study type: clinical RCTs
(2)
Subjects: patients who underwent knee surgeries without limitations
(3)
Interventions: comparison of ACB with other methods for knee surgeries, including local infiltration, periarticular local anesthetic infiltration, FNB, interspace between the popliteal artery and the capsule of the posterior knee block, and epidural analgesia, after knee surgery.
Any disagreement in study selection was discussed by two reviewers or arbitrated by a third reviewer. Exclusion criteria:
(1)
Non-English articles
(2)
No full text available
Risk and bias were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool [82]. We used a random-effects model to represent between-studies heterogeneity. Software of Review Manager (RevMan, version 5.4; The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used for meta-analysis.

3. Results

Through our systematic database research, 1266 records (after eliminating duplicates) were identified (Figure 4). After removing the studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria, we reviewed 130 full-text articles and found that 66 studies used an unclear or inconsistent approach to ACB (Table 1). The variants of ACB intervention were described according to the surface landmark as “halfway between the ASIS and patella” in 27 RCTs, “halfway between the greater trochanter and the patella” in four RCTs, “halfway between the inguinal ligament and the patella” in 12 RCTs, and “halfway between the inguinal ligament and the medial condyle” in two RCTs. According to ultrasound images, ACB interventions were described as follows: “SFA covered by the medial border of the sartorius muscle” in five RCTs, “FA covered by the midpoint of the sartorius muscle” in four RCTs, “FA underneath the sartorius muscles” in 10 RCTs, and “cavity surrounded by the medial femoris, ALM, and sartorius muscle” in five RCTs.
As shown in Table 2, we checked the original grouping of the published literature and examined whether they should be anatomically re-classified as FTB, p-ACB, or d-ACB in these 66 reported studies.

3.1. The Clinical Effect of Mixed ACB versus FNB

Data from eight studies were pooled to evaluate the quadriceps muscle strength after receiving mixed ACB or FNB [17,78,79,89,100,101,131,141]. Among these eight studies, one study misinterprets the FTB as ACB [89]. Two studies used an undetermined definition of ACB [17,79]. FTB or proximal ACB cannot be determined because of the lack of ultrasound images or cited articles. The outcomes showed that the quadriceps muscle strength was more preserved in the mixed ACB group than in the FNB group in the first 24 and 48 postoperative hours. This result reached statistical significance but with high heterogeneity (Figure 5). The cephalad spreading of local anesthetics may anesthetize the motor fibers of the femoral nerve. Compared with FNB, ACB blocks the more distal site, and the motor-sparing effect becomes more significant. Further studies with a unified ACB technique are needed to explore the motor-sparing effect of ACB and FNB after knee surgery.
The results of the mobilization ability between the mixed ACB group and the FNB group were available in six studies and were reported as Time Up and Go (TUG) tests (Figure 6). [17,32,34,93,101,131]. Among these six studies, two studies misinterpret the FTB as ACB [32,34]. One study used an undetermined definition of ACB [17]. FTB or proximal ACB cannot be determined because of the lack of ultrasound images or cited articles. After excluding the above three studies using the undetermined definition of ACB, we performed a subgroup analysis (Figure 7) [17,32,34]. The FNB group was inferior to the mixed ACB group or “the ACB group with the exclusion of FTB or studies with an undetermined definition” 24 and 48 h after surgery (Figure 6 and Figure 7), and this result was highly heterogeneous.
The analgesic effect between true ACB and FNB for knee surgery was insufficient to perform analysis [17]. Theoretically, placing the block more proximally may have an additional analgesic benefit [41]. The injection site and craniocaudal spread of the injectate were correlated with safety and efficacy. However, continuity between the AC and FT has been debated [37,38,39,142]. Clinically, a large volume of local anesthetic in the distal true AC made no difference in pain scores but resulted in quadriceps weakness (46 mL produced a 30% reduction in quadriceps strength following ACB in 50% of the patients, but without any complication on drop foot was mentioned in this study) [143]. Further well-designed studies, focusing on low volumes of local anesthetics and using the corrected classification system, are required to compare the analgesic effect between true ACB and FNB in major and minor knee surgeries, respectively.

3.2. The Effect of p-ACB versus d-ACB

In 2020, a meta-analysis comparing p-ACB with d-ACB for TKA concluded that both techniques had similar analgesic efficacy [144]. However, this result should be explained carefully due to a lack of disclosure of the exact injection level in all studies in regard to the adductor canal. Based on the corrected classification, insufficient studies were eligible to be pooled to evaluate the clinical effect of the proximal true ACB and the distal true ACB.
In our opinion, p-ACB is a better choice than d-ACB for a safe and effective block after knee surgery because of the nature of d-ACB, such as smaller branches and the variable position of involved nerves. The saphenous nerve consistently exists only in the proximal adductor canal (SN pierces VAM at mid-AC). These features make the clinical effect of d-ACB unpredictable. A letter from Gautier et al. described the occurrence of impaired dorsiflex and plantar flexion of the foot after d-ACB with 20 mL local anesthetics injected via the catheter [145]. The spread to the popliteal fossa with apparent contact with both divisions of the sciatic nerve was evidenced by the contrast medium. Although d-ACB may cover the posterior knee pain by blocking the sciatic and obturator nerves, it may also cause foot drop if the catheter tip is placed proximal to the adductor hiatus [145]. The most important way to achieve motor-sparing is to minimize injectate volume to prevent injectate from spreading to other unwanted targets. Therefore, choosing p-ACB allows ACB to be accomplished with the smallest volume, thus sparing motor function. Although current studies are insufficient to prove it, a more consistent conclusion will be achieved if this corrected classification system can be emphasized and applied in future studies.

3.3. The Effect of True ACB versus FTB

Five studies compared pain scores between the FTB and the true ACB group 24 h after knee surgery [24,91,111,129,130]. No significant difference in pain scores 24 h after surgery was found between the two groups (Figure 8). Three studies compared TUG test scores 24 h after surgery between the two groups, and the true ACB group had preserved more mobilization ability (Figure 9) [24,129,142]. In these trials, they used inconsistent outcome measures, and quadriceps strength could not be analyzed. Pain scores from day 0 to day 1 between the two groups cannot be analyzed because of insufficient data. Further research comparing true ACB with FTB is needed to evaluate their motor-sparing effect and analgesic effects.
In brief, based on the corrected classification system, our meta-analysis can conclude that the quadriceps muscle strength and mobilization ability are more preserved in the mixed ACB group than the FNB group 24 h after knee surgery. Compared with the FTB group, the true ACB group preserves more mobilization ability 24 h after knee surgery. Still, more high-quality studies with large sample sizes are needed to explore the clinical effects of FTB, p-ACB, and d-ACB for knee surgeries in the future. The included studies had a low risk of bias after the assessment. Funnel-plot analyses were not performed because they should be used only when there are more than 10 studies included in the meta-analysis [146].

4. Other Considerations

4.1. Complications

Complications related to ACB may include injection pain, infection at the injection site, bleeding, nerve injury, allergic reaction, and local anesthetic systemic toxicity [147]. For ACB or FTB, there is a concern about an intravascular injection of local anesthetics because of the proximity of the femoral vessels [148]. With ultrasound guidance and a negative aspiration test, the risk of nerve injury, local toxicity, and vessel puncture can be reduced. Besides, the half-the-air setting can help identify the correct location using test volume injection other than local anesthetics and prevent incidental intraneural injection [149,150].
If local anesthetics spread to the proximal FT or popliteal fossa, it will block the femoral nerve or sciatic nerve, resulting in quadriceps weakness or foot drop [5,61,145,151]. Chen et al. described a case of quadriceps weakness after a mid-thigh injection of 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine [152]. Besides the injection pressure and anatomical variation, the volume may have contributed to the spread of the anesthetics to the proximal motor branches. An editorial commentary shared a case of delayed onset of foot drop after a true mid-AC injection via the catheter (initial injection of 20 mL of 0.2% ropivacaine, then 10-mL demand with 60-min lockout at 6 mL/h infusion). They proposed that the intercompartmental spread to the posterior compartment of the thigh muscle groups may have been created by the injection pressure [153]. Although true ACB is considered a sensory block, patients should be monitored for the occurrence of quadriceps weakness or foot drop. These complications will increase the risk of falls and delay functional recovery and rehabilitation.

4.2. Local Anesthetic Volume and Concentration

As of now, the optimal ACB regimen achieving adequate analgesia while avoiding side effects remains undefined. When reading relevant publications, we should be aware of the technique classified. A review article in 2016 reported that single-shot or catheter loading volumes of 15–30 mL at a ropivacaine concentration of 0.2% or 0.5% reveal no clinically significant influence on quadriceps strength [7]. This result should be taken cautiously because the authors mistook FTB as true ACB. Recently, a dose-finding study showed that the ED50 of 0.5% ropivacaine required to produce a 30% reduction in quadriceps strength in 50% of the patients was 46 mL when using sonographic landmarks to perform p-ACB [143]. In our clinical practice, injectate as low as 2–5 mL was enough to achieve adequate p-ACB.
Delayed quadriceps weakness has been reported in FTB using 8 mL/h of 0.2% ropivacaine of continuous infusion after TKA. In this case, contrast injection under fluoroscopy disclosed proximal spread approaching the common femoral nerve [151]. A recent multivariate analysis in 2020 revealed a 9% prevalence of quadriceps weakness after single-shot d-ACB (mean volume: 21.7 ± 5.3 mL). This study observed quadriceps weakness associated with females and incremental dosing of ACB volume per unit of body mass index (BMI) [154]. Higher BMI may prevent the spread of anesthetic agents to the FT in some manner. No studies have been conducted to determine the lowest effective concentration. According to the aforementioned evidence, a low volume of anesthetics is favored to prevent motor weakness.

4.3. Continuous versus Single-Shot ACB

The five latest meta-analyses comparing continuous mixed ACB with single-shot mixed ACB revealed that continuous mixed ACB provides better analgesia and results in a shorter length of hospital stay. This may not be a firm conclusion because of a lack of the use of a corrected classification system of ACB, insufficient data, small sample sizes of published trials, and high heterogeneity. Although continuous ACB can conquer the limitation of the short duration of single-shot ACB, it has introduced some disadvantages, such as technical difficulties, catheter obstruction, migration, leakage of local anesthetics, patient education needs, and infection. For carefully selected patients and experienced anesthesiologists, continuous ACB may be an effective postoperative pain management strategy [155,156,157,158,159].

4.4. Perineural Adjuvant of FTB

Numerous published RCTs showed the effect of adjuvants added to local anesthetics for ACB, such as dexamethasone, clonidine, buprenorphine, and dexmedetomidine. Most relevant studies actually used FTB as their ACB model. Adding 4 or 8 mg of dexamethasone to bupivacaine (0.25% or 0.5%) or 0.5% ropivacaine increased the duration of FTB by 5–8 h compared with placebo [110,117,160]. An adjunct of 0.50 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine prolongs the pain-free period by approximately 8 h compared with plain ropivacaine [99] and reduces the total consumption of morphine in the initial four-hour period [96]. An RCT involving healthy volunteers used clonidine as an adjuvant; however, clonidine (150 μg/mL) did not prolong the pain-free duration [97]. The addition of 200 μg of buprenorphine to 30 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine reduced the opioid consumption in the first 24 h after TKA [161]. Various adjuvants for prolonging peripheral nerve blocks have been studied, but the Food and Drug Administration has not yet approved any one of them. The following are some side effects and toxicity correlated with perineural adjuvants: pruritus, nausea and vomiting (opioid), hypotension (clonidine), and bradycardia (dexmedetomidine). Therefore, any perineural adjuvants should be used with caution and concern about side effects and potential toxicity [162].

4.5. ACB for Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Surgery

The best regional analgesic technique for patients undergoing ACL reconstruction (ACLR) remains controversial. Recent suggestions regarding ACB for ACL surgery in four systematic reviews and meta-analyses differ. Articles included in these meta-analyses had mixed ACB definitions, including FTB and proximal true ACB. Two meta-analyses reported that mixed ACB for pain control after ACLR is categorized as weak strength of evidence of benefit [163,164]. However, Sehmbi et al. found that mixed ACB provides modest analgesic benefits for minor arthroscopic knee surgery. The other two meta-analyses concluded that mixed ACB has an analgesic effect similar to that of FNB and spares more quadriceps muscle strength than FNB after ACLR [76,77]. However, these are not definitive conclusions because of the lack of using a corrected classification system, limited sample size, and heterogeneity, and most trials focused on pain severity instead of functional outcomes.

5. Conclusions

This review used a corrected classification system to categorize the FTB, p-ACB, and d-ACB. Several studies misinterpreting mid-thigh level injection as ACB should be corrected to FTB. After clarifying the anatomy and definition of these blocking techniques, the results of this subgroup meta-analysis showed that: (1) the mixed ACB group has a better motor-sparing effect (quadriceps muscle strength and TUG test) than the FNB group 24 h after knee surgery; (2) true ACB provides an analgesic effect similar to that of FTB and preserves more mobilization ability (TUG test) than FTB. FTB may be an alternative blocking method to FNB or ACB for analgesia after knee surgery. These clinical effects of the nerve blocks are also influenced by adjuvants, the volume and concentration of local anesthetics, and surgery. On postoperative day 0, FNB may be better than FTB or ACB because pain management is the major issue right after surgery. The well-explained risk of falls, careful patient education, and communication with the surgeon are essential before performing nerve blocks. On postoperative days 1–2, ACB is recommended for its motor-sparing effect during rehabilitation. Based on the accumulated evidence, physicians may consider all aforementioned factors to choose the most suitable nerve block technique for multimodal analgesic plans for patients undergoing knee surgery.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.-A.L.; methodology, Y.-H.F.C., M.-T.W., H.-C.T. and J.-A.L.; formal analysis, M.-T.W.; data curation, Y.-H.F.C. and M.-T.W.; writing—original draft, Y.-H.F.C. and M.-T.W.; writing—review and editing, Y.-H.F.C., S.-M.C., S.-Y.C., M.-L.W., J.-D.H., H.-C.T. and J.-A.L.; supervision, S.-M.C., S.-Y.C., M.-L.W., J.-D.H., H.-C.T. and J.-A.L.; funding acquisition, S.-M.C., J.-D.H. and J.-A.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethics approval is not required because this study retrieved data from already published studies.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Paul, J.E.; Arya, A.; Hurlburt, L.; Cheng, J.; Thabane, L.; Tidy, A.; Murthy, Y. Femoral Nerve Block Improves Analgesia Outcomes after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Anesthesiology 2010, 113, 1144–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Bauer, M.; Wang, L.; Onibonoje, O.K.; Parrett, C.; Sessler, D.I.; Mounir-Soliman, L.; Zaky, S.; Krebs, V.; Buller, L.T.; Donohue, M.C. Continuous femoral nerve blocks: Decreasing local anesthetic concentration to minimize quadriceps femoris weakness. J. Am. Soc. Anesthesiol. 2012, 116, 665–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Kumar, S.V.; Thiayagarajan, M.K.; Venkatesh, S. An Exact Localization of Adductor Canal and Its Clinical Significance: A Cadaveric Study. Anesth. Essays Res. 2019, 13, 284–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Jaeger, P.; Nielsen, Z.J.; Henningsen, M.H.; Hilsted, K.L.; Mathiesen, O.; Dahl, J.B. Adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block and quadriceps strength: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study in healthy volunteers. Anesthesiology 2013, 118, 409–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kwofie, M.K.; Shastri, U.D.; Gadsden, J.C.; Sinha, S.K.; Abrams, J.H.; Xu, D.; Salviz, E.A. The effects of ultrasound-guided adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block on quadriceps strength and fall risk: A blinded, randomized trial of volunteers. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2013, 38, 321–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Grevstad, U.; Mathiesen, O.; Valentiner, L.S.; Jaeger, P.; Hilsted, K.L.; Dahl, J.B. Effect of adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block on quadriceps strength, mobilization, and pain after total knee arthroplasty: A randomized, blinded study. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2015, 40, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Vora, M.U.; Nicholas, T.A.; Kassel, C.A.; Grant, S.A. Adductor canal block for knee surgical procedures: Review article. J. Clin. Anesth. 2016, 35, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lund, J.; Jenstrup, M.T.; Jaeger, P.; Sørensen, A.M.; Dahl, J.B. Continuous adductor-canal-blockade for adjuvant post-operative analgesia after major knee surgery: Preliminary results. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2010, 55, 14–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jenstrup, M.T.; Jæger, P.; Lund, J.; Fomsgaard, J.S.; Bache, S.; Mathiesen, O.; Larsen, T.K.; Dahl, J.B. Effects of adductor-canal-blockade on pain and ambulation after total knee arthroplasty: A randomized study. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2012, 56, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Van Der Wal, M.; Lang, S.A.; Yip, R.W. Transsartorial approach for saphenous nerve block. Can. J. Anaesth. 1993, 40, 542–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Horn, J.L.; Pitsch, T.; Salinas, F.; Benninger, B. Anatomic basis to the ultrasound-guided approach for saphenous nerve blockade. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2009, 34, 486–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Krombach, J.; Gray, A.T. Sonography for saphenous nerve block near the adductor canal. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2007, 32, 369–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Manickam, B.; Perlas, A.; Duggan, E.; Brull, R.; Chan, V.W.; Ramlogan, R. Feasibility and efficacy of ultrasound-guided block of the saphenous nerve in the adductor canal. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2009, 34, 578–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Abdallah, F.W.; Whelan, D.B.; Chan, V.W.; Prasad, G.A.; Endersby, R.V.; Theodoropolous, J.; Oldfield, S.; Oh, J.; Brull, R. Adductor Canal Block Provides Noninferior Analgesia and Superior Quadriceps Strength Compared with Femoral Nerve Block in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Anesthesiology 2016, 124, 1053–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Jæger, P.; Koscielniak-Nielsen, Z.J.; Schrøder, H.M.; Mathiesen, O.; Henningsen, M.H.; Lund, J.; Jenstrup, M.T.; Dahl, J.B. Adductor canal block for postoperative pain treatment after revision knee arthroplasty: A blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled study. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e111951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Thacher, R.R.; Hickernell, T.R.; Grosso, M.J.; Shah, R.; Cooper, H.J.; Maniker, R.; Brown, A.R.; Geller, J. Decreased risk of knee buckling with adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block in total knee arthroplasty: A retrospective cohort study. Arthroplast. Today 2017, 3, 281–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Elkassabany, N.M.; Antosh, S.; Ahmed, M.; Nelson, C.; Israelite, C.; Badiola, I.; Cai, L.F.; Williams, R.; Hughes, C.; Mariano, E.R.; et al. The Risk of Falls After Total Knee Arthroplasty with the Use of a Femoral Nerve Block Versus an Adductor Canal Block: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Study. Anesth Analg 2016, 122, 1696–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bolarinwa, S.A.; Novicoff, W.; Cui, Q. Reducing costly falls after total knee arthroplasty. World J. Orthop. 2018, 9, 198–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rahimzadeh, P.; Faiz, H.R.; Imani, F.; Hobika, G.G.; Abbasi, A.; Nader, N.D. Relieving Pain After Arthroscopic Knee Surgery: Ultrasound-Guided Femoral Nerve Block or Adductor Canal Block? Turk. J. Anaesthesiol. Reani. 2017, 45, 218–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Runner, R.P.; Boden, S.A.; Godfrey, W.S.; Premkumar, A.; Samady, H.; Gottschalk, M.B.; Xerogeanes, J.W. Quadriceps Strength Deficits After a Femoral Nerve Block Versus Adductor Canal Block for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective, Single-Blinded, Randomized Trial. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2018, 6, 2325967118797990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lim, Y.C.; Quek, H.Y.K.; Phoo, W.H.J.; Mah, C.L.; Tan, S. A randomised controlled trial comparing adductor canal block and femoral nerve block for knee arthroplasty. Singap. Med. J. 2019, 60, 145–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Deloach, J.K.; Boezaart, A.P. Is an adductor canal block simply an indirect femoral nerve block? Anesthesiology 2014, 121, 1349–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Sztain, J.F.; Khatibi, B.; Monahan, A.M.; Said, E.T.; Abramson, W.B.; Gabriel, R.A.; Finneran, J.J.t.; Bellars, R.H.; Nguyen, P.L.; Ball, S.T.; et al. Proximal Versus Distal Continuous Adductor Canal Blocks: Does Varying Perineural Catheter Location Influence Analgesia? A Randomized, Subject-Masked. Control. Clin. Trial. Anesth. Analg. 2018, 127, 240–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Romano, C.; Lloyd, A.; Nair, S.; Wang, J.Y.; Viswanathan, S.; Vydyanathan, A.; Gritsenko, K.; Shaparin, N.; Kosharskyy, B. A Randomized Comparison of Pain Control and Functional Mobility between Proximal and Distal Adductor Canal Blocks for Total Knee Replacement. Anesth. Essays Res. 2018, 12, 452–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Tulgar, S.; Selvi, O. Ultrasound guided distal adductor canal block provides effective postoperative analgesia in lower leg surgery. J. Clin. Anesth. 2018, 45, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Bendtsen, T.F.; Moriggl, B.; Chan, V.; Pedersen, E.M.; Børglum, J. Redefining the adductor canal block. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2014, 39, 442–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Panchamia, J.K.; Niesen, A.D.; Amundson, A.W. Adductor Canal Versus Femoral Triangle: Let Us All Get on the Same Page. Anesth. Analg. 2018, 127, e50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Grevstad, U.; Jæger, P.; Sørensen, J.K.; Gottschau, B.; Ilfeld, B.; Ballegaard, M.; Hagelskjaer, M.; Dahl, J.B. The Effect of Local Anesthetic Volume within the Adductor Canal on Quadriceps Femoris Function Evaluated by Electromyography: A Randomized, Observer- and Subject-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Study in Volunteers. Anesth. Analg. 2016, 123, 493–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sørensen, J.K.; Jæger, P.; Dahl, J.B.; Gottschau, B.; Stephensen, S.L.; Grevstad, U. The Isolated Effect of Adductor Canal Block on Quadriceps Femoris Muscle Strength After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Triple-Blinded, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial with Individual Patient Analysis. Anesth. Analg. 2016, 122, 553–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Grevstad, U.; Mathiesen, O.; Lind, T.; Dahl, J.B. Effect of adductor canal block on pain in patients with severe pain after total knee arthroplasty: A randomized study with individual patient analysis. Br. J. Anaesth. 2014, 112, 912–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Henningsen, M.H.; Jaeger, P.; Hilsted, K.L.; Dahl, J.B. Prevalence of saphenous nerve injury after adductor-canal-blockade in patients receiving total knee arthroplasty. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2013, 57, 112–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Jæger, P.; Zaric, D.; Fomsgaard, J.S.; Hilsted, K.L.; Bjerregaard, J.; Gyrn, J.; Mathiesen, O.; Larsen, T.K.; Dahl, J.B. Adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block for analgesia after total knee arthroplasty: A randomized, double-blind study. Reg. Anesth. Pain. Med. 2013, 38, 526–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Mudumbai, S.C.; Kim, T.E.; Howard, S.K.; Workman, J.J.; Giori, N.; Woolson, S.; Ganaway, T.; King, R.; Mariano, E.R. Continuous adductor canal blocks are superior to continuous femoral nerve blocks in promoting early ambulation after TKA. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2014, 472, 1377–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Shah, N.A.; Jain, N.P. Is continuous adductor canal block better than continuous femoral nerve block after total knee arthroplasty? Effect on ambulation ability, early functional recovery and pain control: A randomized controlled trial. J. Arthroplast. 2014, 29, 2224–2229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Shah, N.A.; Jain, N.P.; Panchal, K.A. Adductor Canal Blockade Following Total Knee Arthroplasty-Continuous or Single Shot Technique? Role in Postoperative Analgesia, Ambulation Ability and Early Functional Recovery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Arthroplast. 2015, 30, 1476–1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wong, W.Y.; Bjørn, S.; Strid, J.M.; Børglum, J.; Bendtsen, T.F. Defining the Location of the Adductor Canal Using Ultrasound. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2017, 42, 241–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Pascarella, G.; Costa, F.; Del Buono, R.; Agrò, F.E. Adductor canal and femoral triangle: Two different rooms with the same door. Saudi. J. Anaesth. 2019, 13, 276–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pascarella, G.; Costa, F.; Del Buono, R.; Strumia, A.; Agrò, F.E. Adductor canal or femoral triangle block: Not a conundrum but a continuum. Br. J. Anaesth. 2020, 125, e233–e234, Comment on Br. J. Anaesth. 2020, 124, e194–e195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sondekoppam, R.V.; Johnston, D.F.; Ranganath, Y.S.; Parra, M.C.; Marian, A.A. Adductor canal or femoral triangle block: The continuity conundrum. Br. J. Anaesth. 2020, 124, e194–e195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Basinger, H.; Hogg, J.P. Anatomy, Abdomen and Pelvis, Femoral Triangle; StatPearls Publishing LLC.: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  41. Bendtsen, T.F.; Moriggl, B.; Chan, V.; Børglum, J. The Optimal Analgesic Block for Total Knee Arthroplasty. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2016, 41, 711–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Refai, N.A.; Tadi, P. Anatomy, Bony Pelvis and Lower Limb, Thigh Femoral Nerve; StatPearls Publishing LLC.: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  43. Bendtsen, T.F.; Moriggl, B.; Chan, V.; Pedersen, E.M.; Børglum, J. Defining adductor canal block. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2014, 39, 253–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Bendtsen, T.F.; Moriggl, B.; Chan, V.; Børglum, J. Basic Topography of the Saphenous Nerve in the Femoral Triangle and the Adductor Canal. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2015, 40, 391–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Tubbs, R.S.; Loukas, M.; Shoja, M.M.; Apaydin, N.; Oakes, W.J.; Salter, E.G. Anatomy and potential clinical significance of the vastoadductor membrane. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2007, 29, 569–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Burckett-St Laurant, D.; Peng, P.; Girón Arango, L.; Niazi, A.U.; Chan, V.W.; Agur, A.; Perlas, A. The Nerves of the Adductor Canal and the Innervation of the Knee: An Anatomic Study. Reg. Anesth. Pain. Med. 2016, 41, 321–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mathew, K.; Varacallo, M. Anatomy, Bony Pelvis and Lower Limb, Saphenous Nerve, Artery, and Vein; StatPearls Publishing LLC.: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  48. Migirov, A.; Vilella, R.C. Anatomy, Abdomen and Pelvis, Adductor Canal (Subsartorial, Hunter’s Canal); StatPearls Publishing LLC.: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  49. Horner, G.; Dellon, A.L. Innervation of the human knee joint and implications for surgery. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1994, 301, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Andersen, H.L.; Andersen, S.L.; Tranum-Jensen, J. The spread of injectate during saphenous nerve block at the adductor canal: A cadaver study. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2015, 59, 238–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ozer, H.; Tekdemir, I.; Elhan, A.; Turanli, S.; Engebretsen, L. A clinical case and anatomical study of the innervation supply of the vastus medialis muscle. Knee. Surg. Sport. Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2004, 12, 119–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Johnston, D.F.; Black, N.D.; Cowden, R.; Turbitt, L.; Taylor, S. Spread of dye injectate in the distal femoral triangle versus the distal adductor canal: A cadaveric study. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2019, 44, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Orduña Valls, J.M.; Vallejo, R.; López Pais, P.; Soto, E.; Torres Rodríguez, D.; Cedeño, D.L.; Tornero Tornero, C.; Quintáns Rodríguez, M.; Baluja González, A.; Álvarez Escudero, J. Anatomic and Ultrasonographic Evaluation of the Knee Sensory Innervation: A Cadaveric Study to Determine Anatomic Targets in the Treatment of Chronic Knee Pain. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2017, 42, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tran, J.; Peng, P.W.H.; Lam, K.; Baig, E.; Agur, A.M.R.; Gofeld, M. Anatomical Study of the Innervation of Anterior Knee Joint Capsule: Implication for Image-Guided Intervention. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2018, 43, 407–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tran, J.; Peng, P.W.H.; Gofeld, M.; Chan, V.; Agur, A.M.R. Anatomical study of the innervation of posterior knee joint capsule: Implication for image-guided intervention. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2019, 44, 234–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Vloka, J.D.; Hadzić, A.; Drobnik, L.; Ernest, A.; Reiss, W.; Thys, D.M. Anatomical landmarks for femoral nerve block: A comparison of four needle insertion sites. Anesth. Analg. 1999, 89, 1467–1470. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  57. Jæger, P.; Lund, J.; Jenstrup, M.T.; Brøndum, V.; Dahl, J.B. Reply to Dr Bendtsen. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2014, 39, p. 254–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Runge, C.; Moriggl, B.; Børglum, J.; Bendtsen, T.F. The Spread of Ultrasound-Guided Injectate From the Adductor Canal to the Genicular Branch of the Posterior Obturator Nerve and the Popliteal Plexus: A Cadaveric Study. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2017, 42, 725–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Tran, J.; Chan, V.W.S.; Peng, P.W.H.; Agur, A.M.R. Evaluation of the proximal adductor canal block injectate spread: A cadaveric study. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2019, 45, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Goffin, P.; Lecoq, J.P.; Ninane, V.; Brichant, J.F.; Sala-Blanch, X.; Gautier, P.E.; Bonnet, P.; Carlier, A.; Hadzic, A. Interfascial Spread of Injectate After Adductor Canal Injection in Fresh Human Cadavers. Anesth. Analg. 2016, 123, 501–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Gautier, P.E.; Hadzic, A.; Lecoq, J.P.; Brichant, J.F.; Kuroda, M.M.; Vandepitte, C. Distribution of Injectate and Sensory-Motor Blockade After Adductor Canal Block. Anesth. Analg. 2016, 122, 279–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hopkins, P.M. Ultrasound guidance as a gold standard in regional anaesthesia. Br. J. Anaesth. 2007, 98, 299–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Fathil, S.M.; Ghani, M.R.A.; Chen, K.-Y.; Lee, P.; Hou, J.-D.; Lin, J.-A. Physical Ergonomics in Peripheral Nerve Block. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Karmakar, M. Atlas of Sonoanatomy for Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine; McGraw Hill Professional: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  65. Kapoor, R.; Adhikary, S.D.; Siefring, C.; McQuillan, P.M. The saphenous nerve and its relationship to the nerve to the vastus medialis in and around the adductor canal: An anatomical study. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2012, 56, 365–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Karkhur, Y.; Mahajan, R.; Kakralia, A.; Pandey, A.P.; Kapoor, M.C. A comparative analysis of femoral nerve block with adductor canal block following total knee arthroplasty: A systematic literature review. J. Anaesthesiol. Clin. Pharmacol. 2018, 34, 433–438. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  67. Kuang, M.J.; Ma, J.X.; Fu, L.; He, W.W.; Zhao, J.; Ma, X.L. Is Adductor Canal Block Better Than Femoral Nerve Block in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty? A GRADE Analysis of the Evidence Through a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Arthroplast. 2017, 32, 3238–3248.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Gao, F.; Ma, J.; Sun, W.; Guo, W.; Li, Z.; Wang, W. Adductor Canal Block Versus Femoral Nerve Block for Analgesia After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin. J. Pain 2017, 33, 356–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Wang, D.; Yang, Y.; Li, Q.; Tang, S.L.; Zeng, W.N.; Xu, J.; Xie, T.H.; Pei, F.X.; Yang, L.; Li, L.L.; et al. Adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block for total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 40721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Dong, C.C.; Dong, S.L.; He, F.C. Comparison of Adductor Canal Block and Femoral Nerve Block for Postoperative Pain in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Medicine 2016, 95, e2983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Li, D.; Ma, G.-G. Analgesic efficacy and quadriceps strength of adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block following total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg. Sport. Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2016, 24, 2614–2619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Y. Effectiveness of continuous adductor canal block versus continuous femoral nerve block in patients with total knee arthroplasty: A PRISMA guided systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 2019, 98, e18056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhao, X.Q.; Jiang, N.; Yuan, F.F.; Wang, L.; Yu, B. The comparison of adductor canal block with femoral nerve block following total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review with meta-analysis. J. Anesth. 2016, 30, 745–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Jiang, X.; Wang, Q.Q.; Wu, C.A.; Tian, W. Analgesic Efficacy of Adductor Canal Block in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review. Orthop. Surg. 2016, 8, 294–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Schnabel, A.; Reichl, S.U.; Weibel, S.; Zahn, P.K.; Kranke, P.; Pogatzki-Zahn, E.; Meyer-Frießem, C.H. Adductor canal blocks for postoperative pain treatment in adults undergoing knee surgery. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Edwards, M.D.; Bethea, J.P.; Hunnicutt, J.L.; Slone, H.S.; Woolf, S.K. Effect of Adductor Canal Block Versus Femoral Nerve Block on Quadriceps Strength, Function, and Postoperative Pain After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Level 1 Studies. Am. J. Sports Med. 2020, 48, 2305–2313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Smith, J.H.; Belk, J.W.; Kraeutler, M.J.; Houck, D.A.; Scillia, A.J.; McCarty, E.C. Adductor Canal Versus Femoral Nerve Block after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Level I Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Early Postoperative Pain, Opioid Requirements, and Quadriceps Strength. Arthroscopy 2020, 36, 1973–1980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Memtsoudis, S.G.; Yoo, D.; Stundner, O.; Danninger, T.; Ma, Y.; Poultsides, L.; Kim, D.; Chisholm, M.; Jules-Elysee, K.; Valle, A.G.; et al. Subsartorial adductor canal vs femoral nerve block for analgesia after total knee replacement. Int. Orthop. 2015, 39, 673–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Wiesmann, T.; Piechowiak, K.; Duderstadt, S.; Haupt, D.; Schmitt, J.; Eschbach, D.; Feldmann, C.; Wulf, H.; Zoremba, M.; Steinfeldt, T. Continuous adductor canal block versus continuous femoral nerve block after total knee arthroplasty for mobilisation capability and pain treatment: A randomised and blinded clinical trial. Arch. Orthop. Trauma. Surg. 2016, 136, 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhao, M.W.; Wang, N.; Zeng, L.; Li, M.; Zhao, Z.K.; Zhang, H.; Tian, H. Comparision for clinical efficiency of continuous adductor canal block and femoral nerve block in total knee arthroplasty. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban 2017, 49, 142–147. [Google Scholar]
  81. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Higgins, J.P.T.; Altman, D.G.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Jüni, P.; Moher, D.; Oxman, A.D.; Savović, J.; Schulz, K.F.; Weeks, L.; Sterne, J.A.C. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011, 343, d5928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Jaeger, P.; Baggesgaard, J.; Sørensen, J.K.; Ilfeld, B.M.; Gottschau, B.; Graungaard, B.; Dahl, J.B.; Odgaard, A.; Grevstad, U. Adductor Canal Block With Continuous Infusion Versus Intermittent Boluses and Morphine Consumption: A Randomized, Blinded, Controlled Clinical Trial. Anesth. Analg. 2018, 126, 2069–2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hanson, N.A.; Derby, R.E.; Auyong, D.B.; Salinas, F.V.; Delucca, C.; Nagy, R.; Yu, Z.; Slee, A.E. Ultrasound-guided adductor canal block for arthroscopic medial meniscectomy: A randomized, double-blind trial. Can. J. Anaesth. 2013, 60, 874–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Hanson, N.A.; Allen, C.J.; Hostetter, L.S.; Nagy, R.; Derby, R.E.; Slee, A.E.; Arslan, A.; Auyong, D.B. Continuous ultrasound-guided adductor canal block for total knee arthroplasty: A randomized, double-blind trial. Anesth. Analg. 2014, 118, 1370–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Jaeger, P.; Grevstad, U.; Henningsen, M.H.; Gottschau, B.; Mathiesen, O.; Dahl, J.B. Effect of adductor-canal-blockade on established, severe post-operative pain after total knee arthroplasty: A randomised study. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2012, 56, 1013–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Kim, D.H.; Lin, Y.; Goytizolo, E.A.; Kahn, R.L.; Maalouf, D.B.; Manohar, A.; Patt, M.L.; Goon, A.K.; Lee, Y.Y.; Ma, Y.; et al. Adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block for total knee arthroplasty: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Anesthesiology 2014, 120, 540–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Mariano, E.R.; Kim, T.E.; Wagner, M.J.; Funck, N.; Harrison, T.K.; Walters, T.; Giori, N.; Woolson, S.; Ganaway, T.; Howard, S.K. A randomized comparison of proximal and distal ultrasound-guided adductor canal catheter insertion sites for knee arthroplasty. J. Ultrasound Med. 2014, 33, 1653–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Zhang, W.; Hu, Y.; Tao, Y.; Liu, X.; Wang, G. Ultrasound-guided continuous adductor canal block for analgesia after total knee replacement. Chin. Med, J. 2014, 127, 4077–4081. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  90. Ishiguro, S.; Yokochi, A.; Yoshioka, K.; Asano, N.; Deguchi, A.; Iwasaki, Y.; Sudo, A.; Maruyama, K. Technical communication: Anatomy and clinical implications of ultrasound-guided selective femoral nerve block. Anesth. Analg. 2012, 115, 1467–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Meier, A.W.; Auyong, D.B.; Yuan, S.C.; Lin, S.E.; Flaherty, J.M.; Hanson, N.A. Comparison of Continuous Proximal Versus Distal Adductor Canal Blocks for Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Noninferiority Trial. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2018, 43, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Marian, A.A.; Ranganath, Y.; Bayman, E.O.; Senasu, J.; Brennan, T.J. A Comparison of 2 Ultrasound-Guided Approaches to the Saphenous Nerve Block: Adductor Canal Versus Distal Transsartorial: A Prospective, Randomized, Blinded, Noninferiority Trial. Reg. Anesth. Pain. Med. 2015, 40, 623–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Macrinici, G.I.; Murphy, C.; Christman, L.; Drescher, M.; Hughes, B.; Macrinici, V.; Diab, G. Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Study to Evaluate Single-Injection Adductor Canal Nerve Block Versus Femoral Nerve Block: Postoperative Functional Outcomes After Total Knee Arthroplasty. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2017, 42, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Messeha, M.M. Real-time ultrasound-guided comparison of adductor canal block and psoas compartment block combined with sciatic nerve block in laparoscopic knee surgeries. Anesth. Essays Res. 2016, 10, 305–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Thapa, D.; Ahuja, V.; Verma, P.; Gombar, S.; Gupta, R.; Dhiman, D. Post-operative analgesia using intermittent vs. continuous adductor canal block technique: A randomized controlled trial. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2016, 60, 1379–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Thapa, D.; Ahuja, V.; Pandey, K.; Gombar, S.; Gupta, R. Evaluation of analgesic efficacy of dexmedetomidine as adjuvant with ropivacaine in ultrasound-guided adductor canal block in patients following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgeries. Br. J. Pain 2019, 13, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Andersen, J.H.; Jaeger, P.; Sonne, T.L.; Dahl, J.B.; Mathiesen, O.; Grevstad, U. Clonidine used as a perineural adjuvant to ropivacaine, does not prolong the duration of sensory block when controlling for systemic effects: A paired, blinded, randomized trial in healthy volunteers. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0181351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  98. Andersen, J.H.; Grevstad, U.; Siegel, H.; Dahl, J.B.; Mathiesen, O.; Jæger, P. Does Dexmedetomidine Have a Perineural Mechanism of Action When Used as an Adjuvant to Ropivacaine?: A Paired, Blinded, Randomized Trial in Healthy Volunteers. Anesthesiology 2017, 126, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Goyal, R.; Mittal, G.; Yadav, A.K.; Sethi, R.; Chattopadhyay, A. Adductor canal block for post-operative analgesia after simultaneous bilateral total knee replacement: A randomised controlled trial to study the effect of addition of dexmedetomidine to ropivacaine. Indian J. Anaesth. 2017, 61, 903–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Koh, H.J.; Koh, I.J.; Kim, M.S.; Choi, K.Y.; Jo, H.U.; In, Y. Does Patient Perception Differ Following Adductor Canal Block and Femoral Nerve Block in Total Knee Arthroplasty? A Simultaneous Bilateral Randomized Study. J. Arthroplast. 2017, 32, 1856–1861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Li, D.; Tan, Z.; Kang, P.; Shen, B.; Pei, F. Effects of multi-site infiltration analgesia on pain management and early rehabilitation compared with femoral nerve or adductor canal block for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: A prospective randomized controlled trial. Int. Orthop. 2017, 41, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Li, D.; Alqwbani, M.; Wang, Q.; Liao, R.; Yang, J.; Kang, P. Efficacy of Adductor Canal Block Combined with Additional Analgesic Methods for Postoperative Analgesia in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Study. J. Arthroplast. 2020, 35, 3554–3562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Shalu, P.S.; Ghodki, P.S.; Sardesai, S.P. Ultrasound-guided adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block for arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament repair under general anesthesia. J. Anaesthesiol. Clin. Pharmacol. 2018, 34, 242–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Grosso, M.J.; Murtaugh, T.; Lakra, A.; Brown, A.R.; Maniker, R.B.; Cooper, H.J.; Macaulay, W.; Shah, R.P.; Geller, J.A. Adductor Canal Block Compared with Periarticular Bupivacaine Injection for Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Randomized Trial. J. Bone. Joint. Surg. Am. 2018, 100, 1141–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Kampitak, W.; Tanavalee, A.; Ngarmukos, S.; Amarase, C.; Songthamwat, B.; Boonshua, A. Comparison of Adductor Canal Block Versus Local Infiltration Analgesia on Postoperative Pain and Functional Outcome after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Malays. Orthop. J. 2018, 12, 7–14. [Google Scholar]
  106. Kampitak, W.; Tanavalee, A.; Ngarmukos, S.; Amarase, C.; Apihansakorn, R.; Vorapalux, P. Does Adductor Canal Block Have a Synergistic Effect with Local Infiltration Analgesia for Enhancing Ambulation and Improving Analgesia after Total Knee Arthroplasty? Knee Surg. Relat. Res. 2018, 30, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Rousseau-Saine, N.; Williams, S.R.; Girard, F.; Hébert, L.J.; Robin, F.; Duchesne, L.; Lavoie, F.; Ruel, M. The Effect of Adductor Canal Block on Knee Extensor Muscle Strength 6 Weeks After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Anesth. Analg. 2018, 126, 1019–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Tong, Q.J.; Lim, Y.C.; Tham, H.M. Comparing adductor canal block with local infiltration analgesia in total knee arthroplasty: A prospective, blinded and randomized clinical trial. J. Clin. Anesth. 2018, 46, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Turner, J.D.; Dobson, S.W.; Henshaw, D.S.; Edwards, C.J.; Weller, R.S.; Reynolds, J.W.; Russell, G.B.; Jaffe, J.D. Single-Injection Adductor Canal Block with Multiple Adjuvants Provides Equivalent Analgesia When Compared with Continuous Adductor Canal Blockade for Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Double-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled, Equivalency Trial. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 3160–3166.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Turner, J.D.; Henshaw, D.S.; Weller, R.S.; Jaffe, J.D.; Edwards, C.J.; Reynolds, J.W.; Russell, G.B.; Dobson, S.W. Perineural dexamethasone successfully prolongs adductor canal block when assessed by objective pinprick sensory testing: A prospective, randomized, dose-dependent, placebo-controlled equivalency trial. J. Clin. Anesth. 2018, 48, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Abdallah, F.W.; Mejia, J.; Prasad, G.A.; Moga, R.; Chahal, J.; Theodoropulos, J.; Dwyer, T.; Brull, R. Opioid- and Motor-sparing with Proximal, Mid-, and Distal Locations for Adductor Canal Block in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Anesthesiology 2019, 131, 619–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Canbek, U.; Akgun, U.; Aydogan, N.H.; Kilinc, C.Y.; Uysal, A.I. Continuous adductor canal block following total knee arthroplasty provides a better analgesia compared to single shot: A prospective randomized controlled trial. Acta Orthop. Traumatol. Turc. 2019, 53, 334–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Cicekci, F.; Yildirim, A.; Önal, Ö.; Celik, J.B.; Kara, I. Ultrasound-guided adductor canal block using levobupivacaine versus periarticular levobupivacaine infiltration after totalknee arthroplasty: A randomized clinical trial. Sao Paulo Med. J. 2019, 137, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Elkassabany, N.M.; Cai, L.F.; Badiola, I.; Kase, B.; Liu, J.; Hughes, C.; Israelite, C.L.; Nelson, C.L. A prospective randomized open-label study of single injection versus continuous adductor canal block for postoperative analgesia after total knee arthroplasty. Bone Jt. J. 2019, 101, 340–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Faiaz, A.; Kamath, S. Randomised Controlled Trial between Ultrasound Guided Femoral Nerve Block and Adductor Canal Block for Postoperative Pain and Functional Outcome in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2019, 13, 11–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Goytizolo, E.A.; Lin, Y.; Kim, D.H.; Ranawat, A.S.; Westrich, G.H.; Mayman, D.J.; Su, E.P.; Padgett, D.E.; Alexiades, M.M.; Soeters, R.; et al. Addition of Adductor Canal Block to Periarticular Injection for Total Knee Replacement: A Randomized Trial. J. Bone. Joint. Surg. Am. 2019, 101, 812–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Ibrahim, A.S.; Aly, M.G.; Farrag, W.S.; Gad El-Rab, N.A.; Said, H.G.; Saad, A.H. Ultrasound-guided adductor canal block after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Effect of adding dexamethasone to bupivacaine, a randomized controlled trial. Eur. J. Pain 2019, 23, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Lyngeraa, T.S.; Jaeger, P.; Gottschau, B.; Graungaard, B.; Rossen-Jørgensen, A.M.; Toftegaard, I.; Grevstad, U. Comparison of the analgesic effect of an adductor canal block using a new suture-method catheter vs. standard perineural catheter vs. single-injection: A randomised, blinded, controlled study. Anaesthesia 2019, 74, 1397–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Kastelik, J.; Fuchs, M.; Krämer, M.; Trauzeddel, R.F.; Ertmer, M.; von Roth, P.; Perka, C.; Kirschbaum, S.M.; Tafelski, S.; Treskatsch, S. Local infiltration anaesthesia versus sciatic nerve and adductor canal block for fast-track knee arthroplasty: A randomised controlled clinical trial. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 2019, 36, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Kukreja, P.; Bevinetto, C.; Brooks, B.; McKissack, H.; Montgomery, T.P.; Alexander, B.; Shah, A. Comparison of Adductor Canal Block and Femoral Nerve Block for Early Ambulation After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Cureus 2019, 11, e6331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  121. Kulkarni, M.M.; Dadheech, A.N.; Wakankar, H.M.; Ganjewar, N.V.; Hedgire, S.S.; Pandit, H.G. Randomized Prospective Comparative Study of Adductor Canal Block vs Periarticular Infiltration on Early Functional Outcome After Unilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, 2360–2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Lan, F.; Shen, Y.; Ma, Y.; Cao, G.; Philips, N.; Zhang, T.; Wang, T. Continuous Adductor Canal Block used for postoperative pain relief after medial Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019, 19, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Lynch, J.R.; Okoroha, K.R.; Lizzio, V.; Yu, C.C.; Jildeh, T.R.; Moutzouros, V. Adductor Canal Block Versus Femoral Nerve Block for Pain Control After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective Randomized Trial. Am. J. Sports Med. 2019, 47, 355–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Stebler, K.; Martin, R.; Kirkham, K.R.; Lambert, J.; De Sede, A.; Albrecht, E. Adductor canal block versus local infiltration analgesia for postoperative pain after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A single centre randomised controlled triple-blinded trial. Br. J. Anaesth. 2019, 123, e343–e349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Wang, Q.; Yue, Y.; Li, D.; Yang, Z.; Yeersheng, R.; Kang, P. Efficacy of Single-Shot Adductor Canal Block Combined with Posterior Capsular Infiltration on Postoperative Pain and Functional Outcome After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Study. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, 1650–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Gadsden, J.C.; Sata, S.; Bullock, W.M.; Kumar, A.H.; Grant, S.A.; Dooley, J.R. The relative analgesic value of a femoral nerve block versus adductor canal block following total knee arthroplasty: A randomized, controlled, double-blinded study. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 2020, 73, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Kavak Akelma, F.; Baran Akkuş, I.; Altinsoy, S.; Özkan, D.; Ergil, J. The effects of pregabalin and adductor canal block on postoperative pain in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Turk. J. Med. Sci. 2020, 50, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  128. Kertkiatkachorn, W.; Kampitak, W.; Tanavalee, A.; Ngarmukos, S. Adductor Canal Block Combined with iPACK (Interspace Between the Popliteal Artery and the Capsule of the Posterior Knee) Block vs Periarticular Injection for Analgesia After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial. J. Arthroplast. 2020, 36, 122–129.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Song, L.; Li, Y.; Xu, Z.; Geng, Z.Y.; Wang, D.X. Comparison of the ultrasound-guided single-injection femoral triangle block versus adductor canal block for analgesia following total knee arthroplasty: A randomized, double-blind trial. J. Anesth. 2020, 34, 702–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Wang, C.G.; Ding, Y.L.; Wang, Y.Y.; Liu, J.Y.; Zhang, Q. Comparison of Adductor Canal Block and Femoral Triangle Block for Total Knee Arthroplasty. Clin. J. Pain. 2020, 36, 558–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Xin, J.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Q.; Cheng, X.; Lin, Y.; Liu, B.; Zhou, L. Adductor canal block is similar to femoral nerve block for the quality of rehabilitation after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Knee Surg. Sport. Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2020, 28, 2334–2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Greenky, M.R.; McGrath, M.E.; Levicoff, E.A.; Good, R.P.; Nguyen, J.; Makhdom, A.M.; Lonner, J.H. Intraoperative Surgeon Administered Adductor Canal Blockade Is Not Inferior to Anesthesiologist Administered Adductor Canal Blockade: A Prospective Randomized Trial. J. Arthroplast. 2020, 35, 1228–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Kampitak, W.; Tanavalee, A.; Ngarmukos, S.; Tantavisut, S. Motor-sparing effect of iPACK (interspace between the popliteal artery and capsule of the posterior knee) block versus tibial nerve block after total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2020, 45, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Raddaoui, K.; Radhouani, M.; Bargaoui, A.; Nasri, O.; Zoghlami, K.; Trigui, E.; Kaabachi, O. Adductor canal block: Effect of volume of injectate on sciatic extension. Saudi. J. Anaesth. 2020, 14, 33–37. [Google Scholar]
  135. Mittal, S.; Mehrotra, S.; Asthana, V.; Agarwal, A. Ultrasound Guided Adductor Canal Block vs Intra Articular Analgesia for Post-operative Pain Relief after Arthroscopic Knee Surgeries: A Comparative Evaluation. Anesth. Essays Res. 2021, 15, 138–142. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  136. Rambhia, M.; Chen, A.; Kumar, A.H.; Bullock, W.M.; Bolognesi, M.; Gadsden, J. Ultrasound-guided genicular nerve blocks following total knee arthroplasty: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2021, 46, 862–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Saini, S.; Khattar, N.; Gautam, D.; Agrawal, N.; Gupta, A. Comparison of combined adductor canal block with peri-hamstring infiltration versus adductor canal block for postoperative analgesia in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. J. Arthrosc. Jt. Surg. 2021, 8, 282–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Wang, C.; Zhang, Z.; Ma, W.; Liu, R.; Li, Q.; Li, Y. Perineural Dexmedetomidine Reduces the Median Effective Concentration of Ropivacaine for Adductor Canal Block. Med. Sci. Monit. 2021, 27, e929857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Wang, Q.; Hu, J.; Zeng, Y.; Li, D.; Yang, J.; Kang, P. Efficacy of Two Unique Combinations of Nerve Blocks on Postoperative Pain and Functional Outcome After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Study. J. Arthroplast. 2021, 36, 3421–3431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Zheng, F.Y.; Liu, Y.B.; Huang, H.; Xu, S.; Ma, X.J.; Liu, Y.Z.; Chu, H.C. The impact of IPACK combined with adductor canal block under ultrasound guidance on early motor function after total knee arthroplasty. Braz. J. Anesthesiol. 2022, 72, 110–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Borys, M.; Domagała, M.; Wencław, K.; Jarczyńska-Domagała, J.; Czuczwar, M. Continuous femoral nerve block is more effective than continuous adductor canal block for treating pain after total knee arthroplasty: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Medicine 2019, 98, e17358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Chuan, A.; Lansdown, A.; Brick, K.L.; Bourgeois, A.J.G.; Pencheva, L.B.; Hue, B.; Goddard, S.; Lennon, M.J.; Walters, A.; Auyong, D. Adductor canal versus femoral triangle anatomical locations for continuous catheter analgesia after total knee arthroplasty: A multicentre randomised controlled study. Br. J. Anaesth. 2019, 123, 360–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Johnston, D.F.; Sondekoppam, R.V.; Giffin, R.; Litchfield, R.; Ganapathy, S. Determination of ED50 and ED95 of 0.5% Ropivacaine in Adductor Canal Block to Produce Quadriceps Weakness: A Dose-Finding Study. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2017, 42, 731–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Zhang, L.-K.; Chen, C.; Du, W.-B.; Zhou, H.-T.; Quan, R.-F.; Liu, J.-S. Is the proximal adductor canal block a better choice than the distal adductor canal block for primary total knee arthroplasty?: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine 2020, 99, e22667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Gautier, P.E.; Lecoq, J.P.; Vandepitte, C.; Harstein, G.; Brichant, J.F. Impairment of sciatic nerve function during adductor canal block. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2015, 40, 85–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Higgins, J.P.; Thomas, J.; Chandler, J.; Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.J.; Welch, V.A. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  147. Arnold, C.; Alvarado, A.C.; Brady, M.F. Saphenous Nerve Block; StatPearls Publishing LLC.: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  148. Hamilton, D.L. Increasing patient safety during adductor canal block. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2020, 45, 394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Tsai, H.-C.; Yoshida, T.; Chuang, T.-Y.; Yang, S.-F.; Chang, C.-C.; Yao, H.-Y.; Tai, Y.-T.; Lin, J.-A.; Chen, K.-Y. Transversus Abdominis Plane Block: An Updated Review of Anatomy and Techniques. BioMed Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 8284363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  150. Lin, J.-A.; Lu, H.-T. A convenient alternative for monitoring opening pressure during multiple needle redirection. Br. J. Anaesth. 2014, 112, 771–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Veal, C.; Auyong, D.B.; Hanson, N.A.; Allen, C.J.; Strodtbeck, W. Delayed quadriceps weakness after continuous adductor canal block for total knee arthroplasty: A case report. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2014, 58, 362–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Chen, J.; Lesser, J.B.; Hadzic, A.; Reiss, W.; Resta-Flarer, F. Adductor canal block can result in motor block of the quadriceps muscle. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2014, 39, 170–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Chen, J.; Kim, J.H.; Rosenblatt, M.A.; Lesser, J.B.; Lai, Y.H. Delayed onset of foot drop after the insertion of a mid-thigh adductor canal catheter. J. Clin. Anesth. 2019, 54, 59–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Yee, E.J.; Gapinski, Z.A.; Ziemba-Davis, M.; Nielson, M.; Meneghini, R.M. Quadriceps Weakness After Single-Shot Adductor Canal Block: A Multivariate Analysis of 1,083 Primary Total Knee Arthroplasties. J. Bone. Joint. Surg. Am. 2020, 103, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Joshi, G.; Gandhi, K.; Shah, N.; Gadsden, J.; Corman, S.L. Peripheral nerve blocks in the management of postoperative pain: Challenges and opportunities. J. Clin. Anesth. 2016, 35, 524–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  156. Wang, C.; Chen, Z.; Ma, X. Continuous adductor canal block is a better choice compared to single shot after primary total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int. J. Surg. 2019, 72, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Zhang, L.K.; Zhang, B.Y.; Quan, R.F.; Xu, H.; Sun, Y.J.; Zhou, J.H. Single shot versus continuous technique adductor canal block for analgesia following total knee arthroplasty: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis. Medicine 2019, 98, e15539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Sun, C.; Zhang, X.; Song, F.; Zhao, Z.; Du, R.; Wu, S.; Ma, Q.; Cai, X. Is continuous catheter adductor canal block better than single-shot canal adductor canal block in primary total knee arthroplasty?: A GRADE analysis of the evidence through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 2020, 99, e20320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Yu, R.; Wang, H.; Zhuo, Y.; Liu, D.; Wu, C.; Zhang, Y. Continuous adductor canal block provides better performance after total knee arthroplasty compared with the single-shot adductor canal block?: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine 2020, 99, e22762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Wang, C.J.; Long, F.Y.; Yang, L.Q.; Shen, Y.J.; Guo, F.; Huang, T.F.; Gao, J. Efficacy of perineural dexamethasone with ropivacaine in adductor canal block for post-operative analgesia in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial. Exp. Ther. Med. 2017, 14, 3942–3946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Krishnan, S.H.; Gilbert, L.A.; Ghoddoussi, F.; Applefield, D.J.; Kassab, S.S.; Ellis, T.A., 2nd. Addition of buprenorphine to local anesthetic in adductor canal blocks after total knee arthroplasty improves postoperative pain relief: A randomized controlled trial. J. Clin. Anesth. 2016, 33, 432–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Kirksey, M.A.; Haskins, S.C.; Cheng, J.; Liu, S.S. Local Anesthetic Peripheral Nerve Block Adjuvants for Prolongation of Analgesia: A Systematic Qualitative Review. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0137312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Sehmbi, H.; Brull, R.; Shah, U.J.; El-Boghdadly, K.; Nguyen, D.; Joshi, G.P.; Abdallah, F.W. Evidence Basis for Regional Anesthesia in Ambulatory Arthroscopic Knee Surgery and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Part II: Adductor Canal Nerve Block-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Anesth. Analg. 2019, 128, 223–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Abdallah, F.W.; Brull, R.; Joshi, G.P. Pain Management for Ambulatory Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Evidence-Based Recommendations From the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia. Anesth. Analg. 2019, 128, 631–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Anatomical illustration of the femoral triangle (FT) and the adductor canal (AC). FA, femoral artery (red arrow); FV, femoral vein (blue arrow); STM, sartorius muscle; ALM, adductor longus muscle; AMM, adductor magnus muscle; VMM, vastus medialis muscle; VAM, vastoadductor membrane (purple arrow); NVM, nerve to vastus medialis (cyanide arrow); SN, saphenous nerve (green arrow); FT, femoral triangle; AC, adductor canal; descending genicular artery (orange arrow).
Figure 1. Anatomical illustration of the femoral triangle (FT) and the adductor canal (AC). FA, femoral artery (red arrow); FV, femoral vein (blue arrow); STM, sartorius muscle; ALM, adductor longus muscle; AMM, adductor magnus muscle; VMM, vastus medialis muscle; VAM, vastoadductor membrane (purple arrow); NVM, nerve to vastus medialis (cyanide arrow); SN, saphenous nerve (green arrow); FT, femoral triangle; AC, adductor canal; descending genicular artery (orange arrow).
Healthcare 11 00210 g001
Figure 2. Ergonomic position for proximal adductor canal block. (A) Patient position for mid-thigh localization. The patient is in a supine position with the hip externally rotated and the knee slightly flexed. (B) Operator and ultrasound machine position. Operators stand same side and lateral to the leg, hold the needle with dominant hand, and position the ultrasound machine on the opposite side of the patient. AC, adductor canal; ASIS, anterior superior iliac spine.
Figure 2. Ergonomic position for proximal adductor canal block. (A) Patient position for mid-thigh localization. The patient is in a supine position with the hip externally rotated and the knee slightly flexed. (B) Operator and ultrasound machine position. Operators stand same side and lateral to the leg, hold the needle with dominant hand, and position the ultrasound machine on the opposite side of the patient. AC, adductor canal; ASIS, anterior superior iliac spine.
Healthcare 11 00210 g002
Figure 3. Ultrasound identification of the adductor canal. (A) Mark the mid-thigh location midway between the ASIS and base of the patella. Place the probe transversely to obtain short axis view. (B) Identify the femoral vessels. Distinguish the artery by compression sign. (C) Slide the probe medially (red arrow) to visualize (D) the medial borders of the sartorius and adductor longus muscle. (E) Slide the probe caudally (red arrow) along the medial borders of the sartorius muscle and the adductor longus muscle to visualize (F) the point of the start of the adductor canal, intersection of the medial borders of sartorius muscle and adductor longus muscle. (G) Adjust the probe to make the neurovascular bundle on the medial side of the ultrasound screen. Then, slide the probe caudally until (H) the femoral artery goes deep to the adductor hiatus. ASIS, anterior superior iliac spine; pAC, proximal adductor canal; dAC, distal adductor canal; FA, femoral artery; V, femoral vein; STM, sartorius muscle; ALM, adductor longus muscle; VMM, vastus medialis muscle.
Figure 3. Ultrasound identification of the adductor canal. (A) Mark the mid-thigh location midway between the ASIS and base of the patella. Place the probe transversely to obtain short axis view. (B) Identify the femoral vessels. Distinguish the artery by compression sign. (C) Slide the probe medially (red arrow) to visualize (D) the medial borders of the sartorius and adductor longus muscle. (E) Slide the probe caudally (red arrow) along the medial borders of the sartorius muscle and the adductor longus muscle to visualize (F) the point of the start of the adductor canal, intersection of the medial borders of sartorius muscle and adductor longus muscle. (G) Adjust the probe to make the neurovascular bundle on the medial side of the ultrasound screen. Then, slide the probe caudally until (H) the femoral artery goes deep to the adductor hiatus. ASIS, anterior superior iliac spine; pAC, proximal adductor canal; dAC, distal adductor canal; FA, femoral artery; V, femoral vein; STM, sartorius muscle; ALM, adductor longus muscle; VMM, vastus medialis muscle.
Healthcare 11 00210 g003
Figure 4. The research results and selection procedure.
Figure 4. The research results and selection procedure.
Healthcare 11 00210 g004
Figure 5. Forest plot of quadriceps muscle strength between the mixed ACB group and the FNB group “24 h, 48 h”.
Figure 5. Forest plot of quadriceps muscle strength between the mixed ACB group and the FNB group “24 h, 48 h”.
Healthcare 11 00210 g005
Figure 6. Forest plot of Time Up and Go test between the mixed ACB group and the FNB group (24 h, 48 h).
Figure 6. Forest plot of Time Up and Go test between the mixed ACB group and the FNB group (24 h, 48 h).
Healthcare 11 00210 g006
Figure 7. Forest plot of Time Up and Go test between “the ACB group with the exclusion of FTB and studies with undetermined definition” and the FNB group (24 h, 48 h).
Figure 7. Forest plot of Time Up and Go test between “the ACB group with the exclusion of FTB and studies with undetermined definition” and the FNB group (24 h, 48 h).
Healthcare 11 00210 g007
Figure 8. Forest plot of pain scores between the FTB group and the true ACB group (24 h).
Figure 8. Forest plot of pain scores between the FTB group and the true ACB group (24 h).
Healthcare 11 00210 g008
Figure 9. Forest plot of Time Up and Go test between the FTB group and the true ACB group (24 h).
Figure 9. Forest plot of Time Up and Go test between the FTB group and the true ACB group (24 h).
Healthcare 11 00210 g009
Table 1. Summary of reported randomized control trials using different approach to the adductor canal block (total ACB related studies number = 130 #).
Table 1. Summary of reported randomized control trials using different approach to the adductor canal block (total ACB related studies number = 130 #).
Description Regarding the Needle (Catheter) Tip PositionCorrected ClassificationRationaleNumber
Approach by surface landmarks
Halfway between ASIS and patellaFTBThis position has been proven to be proximal to the adductor canal [36].27
Halfway between greater trochanter to patellaACB (not sure proximal or distal)Adductor canal is located at the middle one-third of the distance from the base of the patella to the lower border of the greater trochanter [26].4
Halfway between inguinal ligament and patellaACB (not sure proximal or distal)1. Adductor canal is located at the middle one-third of the distance from the base of the patella to the lower border of the greater trochanter [26].
2. The lower border of greater trochanter approximates the level of inguinal crease [56].
12
Halfway between inguinal ligament and medial condyleACB (not sure proximal or distal)1. Adductor canal is located at the middle one-third of the distance from the base of the patella to the lower border of the inguinal crease.
2. Medial condyles of femur articulate with the tibia and the patella. Medial condyles are distal than the base of the patella.
2
Approach by ultrasound guidance
SFA covered by the medial border of sartorius musclesFTBBased on the representative image, the medial border of sartorius did not meet the medial border of adductor longus yet.5
FA covered by the midpoint of sartorius musclesFTB or proximal ACBWhether the medial borders of sartorius and adductor longus meet could not be identified in the representative image.4
FA underneath the sartorius musclesFTB or ACB (not sure proximal or distal)Depends on whether the medial borders of sartorius and adductor longus meet in the representative image.10
Cavity surrounded by medial femoris, ALM, and sartorius musclesFTB or proximal ACB1. Depends on whether the medial borders of sartorius and adductor longus meet in the representative image.
2. Mid-adductor canal can be defined as ”distal to the proximal adductor canal, where the ALM is replaced by AMM posteromedially”.
5
2–3 cm proximal to femoral artery diving deepDistal ACBUsing corrected classification system.5
Numbers of inconsistent approaches of ACB related studies66 *
# Total 130 studies, 29 studies using corrected nomenclature, 35 studies cannot be defined due to unclear technique description, 66 studies using nonunified classification; * There are 3 studies comparing clinical effect of proximal, mid, and distal ACB; Abbreviations: adductor canal block (ACB), femoral triangle block (FTB), superficial femoral artery (SFA), anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS), adductor longus muscle (ALM), adductor magnus muscle (AMM).
Table 2. Corrected classification according to anatomical definition of the adductor canal.
Table 2. Corrected classification according to anatomical definition of the adductor canal.
StudyOriginal Grouping in the StudyDescription Regarding the Needle (Catheter) Tip Position
/Further Evidence in the Study
Corrected Classification
/Rationale
Jæger 2013, 2014, 2018 [15,32,83]ACBHalfway between the ASIS and the patella; the catheter was advanced 1–2 cm beyond the tip of the needle.FTB
/This position has been proven to proximal to the adductor canal [36].
Kwofie 2013 [5]ACBThe midpoint between the inguinal crease and the medial condyle.
/Under ultrasound guidance, the femoral artery in short axis deep to the sartorius muscle can be visualized.
FTB or proximal ACB
/The medial border of sartorius muscle didn’t meet the medial border of ALM in the representative image.
Hanson 2013, 2014 [84,85]ACBMid-thigh, half the distance between the inguinal crease and the patella.Proximal ACB
/1. Adductor canal is located at the middle one-third of the distance from the base of the patella to the lower border of the greater trochanter [26].
2. The lower border of greater trochanter approximates the level of inguinal crease.
3. FA is not diving in the representative image [56].
Grevstad 2014, 2015 [6,30]ACBMid-thigh level, as described by Jæger 2012 [86] (with the FA, femoral vein, and the saphenous nerve deep to the sartorius muscle between the vastus medialis muscle and the ALM).FTB or proximal ACB
/No ultrasound image can be referred to. Whether the medial borders of sartorius and adductor longus meet could not be identified
Kim 2014 [87]ACBMid-thigh level, as described by Manickam 2009 [13].
/By techniques of Manickam 2009, the injection site is 2–3 cm proximal to where the femoral artery diving deep.
Distal ACB
/No ultrasound image can be referred to.
Mariano
2014 [88]
Proximal ACBWhere the medial border of sartorius first covers the superficial femoral artery; the catheter was advanced 1 to 3 cm beyond the needle tip posterior to the nerve.FTB
/1. Obviously, the medial border of sartorius did not meet the medial border of adductor longus yet. 2. The so-called distal ACB in the study should also be anatomically classified as FTB, not to mention the proximal one
Distal ACBApproximately halfway between the anterior superior iliac spine and the patella; the catheter was advanced 1 to 3 cm beyond the needle tip posterior to the nerve.FTB
/This position has been proven to be proximal to the adductor canal [36].
Shah 2014 [34]ACBHalfway between ASIS and the patella; a catheter was inserted 5–8 cm through the cannula.FTB
/This position has been proven to proximal to the adductor canal.
Zhang 2014 [89]ACBApproximately 8–12 cm below the inguinal crease; a catheter was placed 5 cm beyond the tip of the needle.
/The authors used the definition by Ishiguro 2012, in the discussion section [90]. The site is where SFA passes beneath the medial border of the sartorius muscle.
FTB
/Whether the medial borders of sartorius and adductor longus meet could not be identified in the representative image. By the Mariano 2014 [88] and Meier 2018 [91], the medial border of sartorius did not meet the medial border of adductor longus yet in this level.
Marian 2015 [92]ACBMid-thigh level, the femoral artery was visualized in the short axis below the sartorius muscle.FTB or proximal ACB
/Whether the medial borders of sartorius and adductor longus meet could not be identified in the representative image.
Shah 2015 [35]ACBHalfway between the ASIS and the patella; a catheter was inserted 5–8 cm through the cannula.FTB
/This position has been proven to proximal to the adductor canal.
Abdallah 2016 [14]ACBMid-thigh level.
/The authors used the definitions by Manickam 2009 [13] in the method section. By techniques of Manickam 2009, the injection site is 2–3 cm proximal to where the femoral artery diving deep.
Distal ACB
/No ultrasound image can be referred to.
Elkassabany 2016 [17]ACBWhere the femoral artery was underneath the midpoint of the sartorius muscle with the vein just inferior to the artery; the catheter was advanced 2–3 cm beyond the tip of the needle.
/The authors used the definitions by Ishiguro 2012 [90] and Mariano 2014 [88], but the injection site was more distal.
FTB or proximal ACB
/There is no ultrasound image for reference.
Macrinici 2016 [93]ACBWhere the femoral artery in short axis deep to the sartorius muscle.
/The authors used the definitions by Manickam 2009 in the method section.
Distal ACB
/There is no ultrasound image for reference. By techniques of Manickam 2009, the injection site is 2–3 cm proximal to where the femoral artery diving deep [13].
Messeha 2016 [94]ACBMid-point between the inguinal crease and medial condyle.ACB (not sure proximal or distal)
/1. Adductor canal is located at the middle one-third of the distance from the base of the patella to the lower border of the inguinal crease. 2. Medial condyles of femur articulate with the tibia and the patella. Medial condyles are distal than the base of the patella.
Thapa 2016 [95,96]ACBHalfway between ASIS and the patella.FTB
/This position has been proven to be proximal to the adductor canal.
Wiesmann 2016 [79]ACBWhere the femoral artery posterior to the sartorius muscle; the insertion point was 20 cm proximal to the cranial margin of the patella as measured by a ruler. A catheter wad inserted 3–5 cm over the needle.FTB or proximal ACB
/1. There is no ultrasound image or cited articles for reference. 2. Based on Wong 2016 [36], 20 cm proximal to the patella may be located in the femoral triangle.
Andersen 2017 [97,98]ACBMid-thigh level, the femoral artery was visualized in the short axis below the sartorius muscle.FTB or proximal ACB
/There is no ultrasound image for reference.
Goyal 2017 [99]ACBMid-thigh level. Use ultrasound proof to visualize sartorius muscle and femoral vessels. Target anterolateral to the femoral artery and below the sartorius.FTB
/From the ultrasound image, the medial border of sartorius muscle didn’t meet the medial border of ALM yet.
Koh 2017 [100]ACBWhere the femoral artery was underneath the sartorius muscle; the needle was placed to the space bordered by vastus medialis, sartorius muscle, and femoral artery.FTB or ACB (not sure proximal or distal)
/No ultrasound image can be referred to. Whether the medial borders of sartorius and adductor longus meet could not be identified by the description.
Li 2017, 2020 [101,102]ACBFind a cavity surrounded by the sartorius muscle, medial femoral muscle, and the adductor muscles.FTB or ACB (not sure proximal or distal)
/There is no ultrasound image for reference. Whether the medial borders of sartorius and adductor longus meet could not be identified by the description.
Ghodki 2018 [103]ACBHalfway between ASIS and the patella.FTB
/This position has been proven to proximal to the adductor canal.
Grosso 2018 [104]ACBHalfway between ASIS and the patella.FTB
/This position has been proven to proximal to the adductor canal.
Kampitak 2018 [105]ACBHalfway between the inguinal crease and the patella.ACB (not sure proximal or distal)
/1. Adductor canal is located at the middle one-third of the distance from the base of the patella to the lower border of the inguinal crease. 2. Medial condyles of femur articulate with the tibia and the patella. Medial condyles are distal than the base of the patella.
Kampitak 2018 [106]ACBMid-thigh level.
/Based on the reference of Jaeger 2012 [86], Jenstrup 2012 [9], and Lund 2011 [8] from the introduction section, these articles defined mid-thigh level as halfway between ASIS and patella.
FTB
/This position has been proven to proximal to the adductor canal.
Meier
2018 [91]
Proximal ACBWhere SFA existed underneath the medial third of sartorius (ultrasound image); a catheter was advanced 1 to 2 cm into the adductor canal.
/The authors used the definitions by Mariano 2014 in the introduction section.
FTB
/Obviously, the medial border of sartorius did not meet the medial border of adductor longus yet.
Distal ACBWhere SFA was underneath the midpoint of the sartorius muscle.FTB or proximal ACB
/Whether the medial borders of sartorius and adductor longus meet could not be identified in the representative image.
Romano 2018 [24]Proximal ACB
Where SFA passed beneath the medial border of sartorius.
/The authors agreed with the definitions by Mariano 2014 and Meier 2018 when comparing the results of proximal and distal ACB in the discussion section.
FTB
/The medial border of sartorius did not meet the medial border of adductor longus yet
Distal ACBHalf of the distance between the inguinal crease and top of patella.ACB (but not sure of proximal or distal)
/1. Adductor canal is located at the middle one-third of the distance from the base of the patella to the lower border of the greater trochanter [26]. 2. The lower border of greater trochanter approximates the level of inguinal crease [56].
Rousseau-Saine 2018 [107]ACBHalfway between the ASIS and the patella.FTB
/This position has been proven to proximal to the adductor canal.
Runner 2018 [20]ACBThe adductor canal was located by visualizing the FA on the short axis bordered by the sartorius muscle, the vastus medialis muscle, and the ALM.FTB or proximal ACB
/No ultrasound image can be referred to. Whether the medial borders of sartorius and adductor longus meet could not be identified.
Sztain 2018 [23]Proximal ACBHalfway between the ASIS and the patella.FTB
/This position has been proven to proximal to the adductor canal.
Distal ACB2–3 cm proximal to the adductor hiatus.Distal ACB
Tong 2018 [108]ACBMid-thigh approach based on Jæger 2013 [32], halfway between the ASIS and the patella.FTB
/This position has been proven to proximal to the adductor canal.
Turner 2018 [109]ACBMidpoint between the patella and inguinal crease.ACB (but not sure of proximal or distal)
/As explained above, adductor canal is located at the middle one-third of the distance from the patella and inguinal crease.
Turner 2018 [110]ACBHalfway between the ASIS and the patella.FTB
/This position has been proven to proximal to the adductor canal.
Abdallah 2019 [111]Proximal ACBFemoral artery medial to sartorius.FTB
/The medial border of sartorius did not reach the medial border of adductor longus in the representative image.
Mid-ACBFemoral artery inferior to sartorius.FTB or proximal ACB
/Whether the medial borders of sartorius and adductor longus meet could not be identified in the representative image.
Distal ACBFemoral artery lateral to sartorius.Distal ACB
/Femoral artery is diving in the representative image.
Canbek 2019 [112]ACBMid-thigh level (halfway between the anterior superior iliac spine and the patella).FTB
/This position has been proven to proximal to the adductor canal.
Cicekci 2019 [113]ACBMidway between the inguinal ligament and the medial condyle.
/An ultrasonographic image of the saphenous nerve was captured in the adductor canal, laterally to the femoral artery under the sartorius muscle.
ACB (not sure proximal or distal)
/1. Adductor canal is located at the middle one-third of the distance from the base of the patella to the lower border of the inguinal crease. 2. Medial condyles of femur articulate with the tibia and the patella. Medial condyles are distal than the base of the patella.
Elkassabany 2019 [114]ACBHalfway between the ASIS and the patella.FTB
/This position has been proven to proximal to the adductor canal.
Faiaz 2019 [115]ACBMid-thigh level.
/Based on the citation of Jæger 2013 [4], mid-thigh level is at halfway between ASIS and the patella.
FTB
/This position has been proven to proximal to the adductor canal.
Goytizolo 2019 [116]ACBMid-thigh level.
/The femoral artery was visualized under the sartorius muscle.
FTB or ACB (not sure proximal or distal)
/No ultrasound image can be referred to. Whether the medial borders of sartorius and adductor longus meet could not be identified.
Ibrahim 2019 [117]ACBMidway between the ASIS and patella.FTB
/This position has been proven to proximal to the adductor canal.
Lim 2019 [21]ACBMid-thigh, midway between the ASIS and patella.FTB
/This position has been proven to proximal to the adductor canal.
Lyngeraa 2019 [118]ACBMid-thigh, midway between the ASIS and patella.FTB
/This position has been proven to proximal to the adductor canal.
Kastelik 2019 [119]ACBIdentify the SFA below the sartorius muscle.FTB or ACB (not sure proximal or distal)
/No ultrasound image can be referred to. Whether the medial borders of sartorius and adductor longus meet could not be identified.
Kukreja 2019 [120]ACBMid-thigh level.
/Based on the citation of Jæger 2013 [32], mid-thigh level is at halfway between ASIS and the patella.
FTB
/This position has been proven to proximal to the adductor canal.
Kulkarni 2019 [121]ACBMid-thigh, halfway between the inguinal crease and patella.ACB
/1. Adductor canal is located at the middle one-third of the distance from the base of the patella to the lower border of the greater trochanter.
2. The lower border of greater trochanter approximates the level of inguinal crease.
Lan 2019 [122]ACBMid-thigh level.
/Based on the citation of Lund 2011 [8], mid-thigh level at halfway between ASIS and the patella.
FTB
/This position has been proven to proximal to the adductor canal.
Lynch 2019 [123]ACBTarget the saphenous nerve at the adductor hiatus.Distal ACB
Stebler 2019 [124]ACBMid-thigh site; target the triangular hyperechoic region lateral to the artery, bounded by the sartorius muscle superiorly, and the vastus medialis laterally.FTB or ACB (not sure proximal or distal)
/There is no ultrasound image for reference. Whether the medial borders of sartorius and adductor longus meet could not be identified from the paragraph.
Wang 2019 [125]ACBHalf the distance between the inguinal crease and the patella.ACB (but not sure of proximal or distal)
/1. Adductor canal is located at the middle one-third of the distance from the base of the patella to the lower border of the greater trochanter.
2. The lower border of greater trochanter approximates the level of inguinal crease.
Gadsden 2020 [126]ACBThe midpoint between the inguinal crease and the proximal aspect of patella.ACB (but not sure of proximal or distal)
/1. Adductor canal is located at the middle one-third of the distance from the base of the patella to the lower border of the greater trochanter. 2. The lower border of greater trochanter approximates the level of inguinal crease.
KAVAK AKELMA 2020 [127]ACBHalfway between the ASIS and the patella; visualize femoral artery under the sartorius muscle.FTB
/This position has been proven to proximal to the adductor canal.
Kertkiatkachorn 2020 [128]ACBIdentify the sartorius muscle, ALM, vastus medialis muscles, and the femoral artery. Position the needle tip between the superficial femoral artery and the posterior region of the sartorius muscle.FTB or proximal ACB
/1. No sonographic image can be referred to. Whether the medial borders of sartorius and adductor longus meet cannot be identified. 2. Mid-adductor canal can be defined as “distal to the proximal adductor canal, where the ALM is replaced by AMM posteromedially”.
Song 2020 [129]FTB5 cm proximal to the apex of femoral triangle, identified as the intersection of the medial borders of the sartorius and adductor longus muscles.FTB
ACB5 cm distal to the apex of femoral triangle.Almost mid-adductor ACB
/1. The femoral artery was underneath the sartorius muscle, not diving deep in the representative image. 2. Mid-adductor canal can be defined as ”distal to the proximal adductor canal, where the ALM is replaced by AMM posteromedially”. The ALM was almost replaced by AMM from the representative image.
Wang 2020 [130]FTBHalfway between the ASIS and the base of the patella; a catheter was inserted 3 cm past the needle tip.FTB
ACBThe midpoint between the greater trochanter of the femur and the base of the patella.Proximal ACB
/1. Adductor canal surrounded by the sartorius muscle, the vastus medialis muscle, and the adductor longus muscle was identified clearly from the representative image. 2. Adductor canal is located at the middle one-third of the distance from the base of the patella to the lower border of the greater trochanter [26].
Xin 2020 [131]ACBThe probe was placed on the middle of the thigh. A catheter was inserted 3 cm past the needle tip.
/The authors use the techniques described by Manickam 2009.
Distal ACB
/There is no ultrasound image for reference. By techniques of Manickam 2009, the injection site is 2–3 cm proximal to where the femoral artery diving deep [13].
Greenky 2020 [132]ACBThe probe was placed anteromedially on the middle and distal third of the thigh.
/The femoral artery and sartorius muscle formed the roof of the adductor canal.
FTB or proximal ACB
/Whether the medial borders of sartorius and adductor longus meet cannot be identified from the sonographic image.
Kampitak 2020 [133]ACBHalfway between the ASIS and the base of the patella.FTB
Raddaoui 2020 [134]ACBThe probe was positioned transversely midway from the patella and the inguinal ligament.ACB
/1. Adductor canal is located at the middle one-third of the distance from the base of the patella to the lower border of the greater trochanter.
2. The lower border of greater trochanter approximates the level of inguinal crease.
Mittal 2021 [135]ACBHalfway between the ASIS and the base of the patella.FTB
Rambhia 2021 [136]ACBThe adductor canal catheter was placed as per our standard technique, at the mid-point between the inguinal crease and the superior pole of the patella.ACB
/1. Adductor canal is located at the middle one-third of the distance from the base of the patella to the lower border of the greater trochanter.
2. The lower border of greater trochanter approximates the level of inguinal crease.
Saini 2021 [137]ACBProbe was placed transversely on medial aspect of mid-thigh; midway between ASIS and base of patella.FTB
Wang 2021 [138]ACBProbe was placed on the anteromedial part of the thigh at the level of the midpoint, between the greater trochanter of the femur and the proximal edge of patella.ACB
/Adductor canal is located at the middle one-third of the distance from the base of the patella to the lower border of the greater trochanter.
Wang 2021 [139]ACBProbe was used to scan the middle of the thigh (half the distance between the inguinal crease and the patella)ACB
/1. Adductor canal is located at the middle one-third of the distance from the base of the patella to the lower border of the greater trochanter.
2. The lower border of greater trochanter approximates the level of inguinal crease.
Zheng 2022 [140]ACBProbe was placed at the midpoint of the connecting line between the greater trochanter of the femur and the upper edge of the patella.ACB
/Adductor canal is located at the middle one-third of the distance from the base of the patella to the lower border of the greater trochanter.
Abbreviations: adductor canal block (ACB), femoral triangle block (FTB), superficial femoral artery (SFA), descending genicular artery (DGA), anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS), adductor longus muscle (ALM), adductor magnus muscle (AMM).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fan Chiang, Y.-H.; Wang, M.-T.; Chan, S.-M.; Chen, S.-Y.; Wang, M.-L.; Hou, J.-D.; Tsai, H.-C.; Lin, J.-A. Motor-Sparing Effect of Adductor Canal Block for Knee Analgesia: An Updated Review and a Subgroup Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Based on a Corrected Classification System. Healthcare 2023, 11, 210. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11020210

AMA Style

Fan Chiang Y-H, Wang M-T, Chan S-M, Chen S-Y, Wang M-L, Hou J-D, Tsai H-C, Lin J-A. Motor-Sparing Effect of Adductor Canal Block for Knee Analgesia: An Updated Review and a Subgroup Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Based on a Corrected Classification System. Healthcare. 2023; 11(2):210. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11020210

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fan Chiang, Yu-Hsuan, Ming-Tse Wang, Shun-Ming Chan, Se-Yi Chen, Man-Ling Wang, Jin-De Hou, Hsiao-Chien Tsai, and Jui-An Lin. 2023. "Motor-Sparing Effect of Adductor Canal Block for Knee Analgesia: An Updated Review and a Subgroup Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Based on a Corrected Classification System" Healthcare 11, no. 2: 210. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11020210

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop