Year : 2015  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 279-282

Femoral nerve block versus adductor canal block for postoperative pain control after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A randomized controlled double blind study

Lecturer of Anesthesia, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Mohamed Sayed El Ahl
Department of Anesthesia, Ain Shams University, Cairo
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/1658-354X.154708

Rights and Permissions

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability of the postoperative pain control using adductor canal block (ACB) compared that using the femoral nerve block (FNB) in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACLR). Materials and methods: One hundred and twenty-eight patients who had been scheduled to patellar graft ACLR were included in this double blind study, and were randomly allocated into two groups; group ACB and group FNB (64 patients each). All patients received general anesthesia. At the end of the surgery, patients in group FNB received a FNB and those in group ACB received an ACB. The postoperative pain (visual analog scale [VAS]) and muscle weakness were assessed in the postoperative care unit and every 6 h thereafter for 24 h. The total morphine requirements were also recorded. Results: Patients in group ACB had significantly higher VAS (at 18 h and 24 h), higher morphine consumption, but significantly less quadriceps weakness than those in group FNB. Conclusion: In patients with patellar graft ACLR, the ACB can maintain a higher quadriceps power, but with lesser analgesia compared with the FNB.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded457    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 24    

Recommend this journal