Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorCanbek, Umut
dc.contributor.authorAkgun, Ulas
dc.contributor.authorAydogan, Nevres Hurriyet
dc.contributor.authorKilinc, Cem Yalin
dc.contributor.authorUysal, Ali Ihsan
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-20T14:41:06Z
dc.date.available2020-11-20T14:41:06Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.issn1017-995X
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.aott.2019.04.001
dc.identifier.urihttps://app.trdizin.gov.tr//makale/TXpNeE5UazVPUT09
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12809/869
dc.descriptionAkgun, Ulas/0000-0002-5298-6559en_US
dc.descriptionWOS: 000495621200004en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed ID: 31056404en_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: The aim of this study was to compare single-shot adductor canal block and continuous infusion adductor canal block techniques in total knee arthroplasty patients. Methods: We prospectively randomized 123 patients who were scheduled for unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty surgery into single shot (n = 60; mean age: 67.1 +/- 6.9 years) and continuous (n = 63; mean age: 66.9 +/- 6.8 years) adductor canal block groups. Postoperative visual analog scale pain scores, need for additional opioids and functional results as; timed up and go test, the 30-s chair stand test, 5 times sit-to-stand test, the 6-min walking test, the time to active straight leg raise, time to walking upstairs, maximal flexion at the time of discharge, duration of stay in hospital were compared between the two groups. Results: Pain scores were lower in the continuous adductor canal block group as compared to the single-shot adductor canal block group throughout the postoperative period (p = 0.001). Rescue analgesia was required for 6 (10%) patients in the single shot group and for 1 (1.59%) patient in the continuous group (p = 0.044). Patients in the continuous adductor canal block group displayed better functional results than the single-shot adductor canal block group with respect to active straight-leg rise time (25.52 +/- 4.56 h vs 30.47 +/- 8.07 h, p = 0.001), 6-min walking test (74.52 +/- 29.38 m vs 62.18 +/- 33.32 m, p = 0.035) and maximal knee flexion degree at discharge (104.92 +/- 5.35 degrees vs 98.5 +/- 7.55 degrees, p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups for other functional and ambulation scores. Conclusion: Pain control following total knee arthroplasty was found to be better in those patients treated with continuous adductor canal block as compared to those treated with single-shot adductor canal block. Patients treated with continuous adductor canal block also displayed better ambulation and functional recovery following total knee arthroplasty. (C) 2019 Turkish Association of Orthopaedics and Traumatology. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.en_US
dc.item-language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherTurkish Assoc Orthopaedics Traumatologyen_US
dc.item-rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectAdductor Canal Blocken_US
dc.subjectContinuousen_US
dc.subjectFunctional Recoveryen_US
dc.subjectKnee Arthroplastyen_US
dc.subjectSingle Shoten_US
dc.titleContinuous adductor canal block following total knee arthroplasty provides a better analgesia compared to single shot: A prospective randomized controlled trialen_US
dc.item-typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmenten_US
dc.contributor.departmentTemp[Canbek, Umut; Akgun, Ulas; Aydogan, Nevres Hurriyet; Kilinc, Cem Yalin] Mugla Sitki Kocman Univ, Fac Med, Dept Orthopaed & Traumatol, Mugla, Turkey -- [Uysal, Ali Ihsan] Mugla Sitki Kocman Univ Training & Res Hosp, Dept Anesthesiol, Mugla, Turkeyen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.aott.2019.04.001
dc.identifier.volume53en_US
dc.identifier.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.startpage334en_US
dc.identifier.endpage339en_US
dc.relation.journalActa Orthopaedica Et Traumatologica Turcicaen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster