To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Continuous Pericapsular Nerve Group Block vs. Continuous Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block in THA

Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
September 2023

Continuous Pericapsular Nerve Group Block vs. Continuous Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block in THA

Vol: 303| Issue: 9| Number:6| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:1

Comparison of continuous pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block versus continuous fascia iliaca compartment block on pain management and quadriceps muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized controlled study.

BMC Anesthesiol. 2023 Jul 11;23(1):233.

Contributing Authors:
L Duan L Zhang CG Shi LG Huang H Ao ZP Wang Y Deng ML Sun

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

59 elderly patients scheduled for a total hip arthroplasty were randomized to receive a continuous pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block (n=30) or a continuous fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB). The primary outcome of interest was pain at rest and during exercise, as measured on a numerical rating scale (NRS), assessed up to 48 hours post-operation. The secondary outcomes of interest included...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue