Intrathecal opioid versus ultrasound guided fascia iliaca plane block for analgesia after primary hip arthroplasty: study protocol for a randomised, blinded, noninferiority controlled trial
2011

Comparing Pain Relief Methods After Hip Surgery

Sample size: 108 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Kearns Rachel J, Macfarlane Alan J R, Anderson Keith J, Kinsella John

Primary Institution: Glasgow University Academic Unit of Anaesthesia, Pain and Critical Care Medicine

Hypothesis

Ultrasound guided fascia iliaca plane block provides post-operative analgesia which is not inferior to that obtained with spinal morphine in patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty.

Conclusion

If the ultrasound guided fascia iliaca block provides pain relief that is not inferior to spinal morphine, it could lead to the removal of morphine from spinal injections, reducing side effects and improving patient safety.

Supporting Evidence

  • Hip replacement surgery is becoming more common due to an aging population and obesity.
  • Spinal opioids provide good pain relief but can have side effects.
  • Ultrasound guidance has been shown to improve the success of nerve blocks.

Takeaway

This study is looking at two ways to help people feel less pain after hip surgery. One way uses a special block with ultrasound, and the other uses a medicine called morphine. They want to see if the ultrasound method works just as well.

Methodology

This is a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled, noninferiority trial comparing ultrasound guided fascia iliaca block with spinal morphine for post-operative analgesia.

Potential Biases

Potential bias in patient selection and allocation concealment, although measures are in place to minimize these risks.

Limitations

The study is not powered for secondary outcomes, which may limit the conclusions that can be drawn from those measures.

Participant Demographics

Patients aged 18-85, ASA physical status I-III, scheduled for unilateral primary hip arthroplasty.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1745-6215-12-51

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication