The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Femoral Nerve Block Improves Analgesia Outcomes after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Abstract
Background: Femoral nerve blockade (FNB) is a common method of analgesia for postoperative pain control after total knee arthroplasty. We conducted a systematic review to compare the analgesia outcomes in randomized controlled trials that compared FNB (with and without sciatic nerve block) with epidural and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). Methods: We identified 23 randomized controlled trials that compared FNB with PCA or epidural analgesia. These studies included 1,016 patients, 665 with FNB, 161 with epidural, and 190 with PCA alone. Results: All 10 studies of single-shot FNB (SSFNB) used concurrent PCA opioids. SSFNB was found to reduce PCA morphine consumption at 24 h (-19.9 mg, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -35.2 to -4.6) and 48 h (-38.0 mg, 95% CrI: -56.0 to -19.7), pain scores with activity (but not at rest) at 24 and 48 h (-1.8 visual analog pain scale, 95% CrI: -3.3 to -0.02 at 24 h; -1.5 visual analog pain scale, 95% CrI: -2.9 to -0.02 at 48 h) and reduce the incidence of nausea (0.37 odds ratio, 95% CrI: 0.1 to 0.9) compared with PCA alone. SSFNB had similar morphine consumption and pain scores compared with SSFNB plus sciatic nerve block, and SSFNB plus continuous FNB. Conclusions: SSFNB or continuous FNB (plus PCA) was found to be superior to PCA alone for postoperative analgesia for patients having total knee arthroplasty. The impact of adding a sciatic block or continuous FNB to a SSFNB needs to be studied further.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: Combining direct and indirect evidence.
Caldwell, D. M., Ades, A. E., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7521.897 · Cited by 1,600
Cited by
Chou, R., Gordon, D. B., de Leon-Casasola, O. A., Rosenberg, J. M., Bickler, S., Brennan, T., Carter, T., Cassidy, C. L., Chittenden, E. H., Degenhardt, E., et al. (2016) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2015.12.008 · Cited by 3,171
Enhanced recovery after surgery for major orthopedic surgery: a narrative review
Choi, Y. S., Kim, T. W., Chang, M. J., Kang, S.-B., & Chang, C. B. (2022) · Knee Surgery & Related Research · doi:10.1186/s43019-022-00137-3 · Cited by 83
Metadata
- Authors
- Paul, J. E., Arya, A., Hurlburt, L., Cheng, J., Thabane, L., Tidy, A., & Murthy, Y.
- Venue
- Anesthesiology
- Published
- 2010-11-01
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1144-1162
- ISSN
- 0003-3022 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1967006895
- Cited by
- 440
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 23.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Femoral Nerve Block Improves Analgesia Outcomes after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/aln.0b013e3181f4b18
- The paper
- Paul, J. E., Arya, A., Hurlburt, L., Cheng, J., Thabane, L., Tidy, A., & Murthy, Y. (2010). Femoral Nerve Block Improves Analgesia Outcomes after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Anesthesiology. https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0b013e3181f4b18
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.