BackgroundThe femoral nerve block (FNB) may be used for analgesia in hip fracture surgery. The pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is a novel regional technique and may provide better pain reduction while preserving motor function, but these blocks have not been directly compared.MethodsIn a single-center double-blinded randomized comparative trial, patients presenting for hip fracture surgery received analgesia with either FNB or PENG block. The primary outcome measure was pain scores (Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) 0 to 10). Secondary outcomes were postoperative quadriceps strength, opiate use, complications, length of hospital stay, and patient-reported outcomes.ResultsSixty patients were randomized and equally allocated between groups. Baseline demographics were similar. Postoperatively in recovery (day 0), the PENG group experienced less pain compared with the FNB group. (In the PENG group, 63% experienced no pain, 27% mild pain, and 10% moderate to severe pain. In comparison, 30% of the FNB group reported no pain, 27% mild pain, and 36% moderate to severe pain; p=0.04). This was assessed using an 11-point Likert NRS. Quadriceps strength was better preserved in the PENG group in the recovery unit (assessed using Oxford muscle strength grading, 60% intact in the PENG group vs none intact in the FNB group; p<0.001) and on day 1 (90% intact vs 50%, respectively; p=0.004). There was no difference in other outcomes.ConclusionsPatients receiving a PENG block for intraoperative and postoperative analgesia during hip fracture surgery experience less postoperative pain in the recovery room with no difference detected by postoperative day 1. Quadriceps strength was better preserved with the PENG block. Despite the short-term analgesic benefit and improved quadriceps strength, there were no differences detected in the quality of recovery.

IntroductionPericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is a novel regional analgesia technique to reduce pain after hip surgery and hip fractures. This review was conducted to summarize current literature.MethodsA scoping review was carried out using the Joanna Briggs Institute framework. All articles describing the use of PENG block as a regional analgesia and/or anesthesia technique for hip pain were considered eligible for inclusion. Ovid Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched. Adult and pediatric studies were included. Excluded were articles not available in English language, not available in full-text, related to non-orthopedic indications such as soft tissue surgery, and pelvic or femoral shaft fractures.ResultsDatabase searches identified 345 articles, 20 of which could be included in the current review, with a combined patient number of 74. Included articles comprised case reports and case series only, describing 1 to 10 patients. In all studies, PENG block was described to provide sufficient analgesia or anesthesia. Transient motor side effects occurred only when the local anesthetic was deposited in an unintended location (n=2).ConclusionsCurrent evidence of using PENG block for hip surgery or hip pain is limited to case reports and case series only. PENG block is a promising regional analgesia technique as an alternative to other regional nerve blocks such as femoral nerve block or iliac fascia nerve block. Observational and experimental studies are required to determine the effectiveness, efficacy and safety of the PENG block.

Background The PEricapsular Nerve Group (PENG) block is a novel regional analgesia technique that provides improved analgesia in patients undergoing hip surgery while preserving motor function. In this study the PENG block was investigated for analgesia in elective total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods In this multi-centre double-blinded randomized-controlled trial, in addition to spinal anesthesia and local infiltration analgesia (LIA), THA patients received either a PENG block or a sham block. The primary outcome was pain score (numeric rating scale 0–10) 3 h postoperatively (Day 0). Secondary outcomes were postoperative quadriceps muscle strength, postoperative Day 1 pain scores, opiate use, complications, length of hospital stay, and patient-reported outcome measures. Results Sixty patients were randomized and equally allocated between groups. Baseline demographics were similar. Postoperative Day 0, the PENG group experienced less pain compared to the sham group (PENG: 14 (47%) patients no pain, 14 (47%) mild pain, 2 (6%) moderate/severe pain versus sham: 6 (20%) no pain, 14 (47%) mild pain, 10 (33%) moderate/severe pain; p = 0.03). There was no difference in quadriceps muscle strength between groups on Day 0 (PENG: 23 (77%) intact versus sham: 24 (80%) intact; p = 0.24) and there were no differences in other secondary outcomes. Conclusions Patients receiving a PENG block for analgesia in elective THA experience less postoperative pain on Day 0 with preservation of quadriceps muscle strength. Despite these short-term benefits, no quality of recovery or longer lasting postoperative effects were detected.

Background Patient satisfaction is a well-established indicator to evaluate the quality of medical care and there is an increasing support for the use of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) to evaluate satisfaction. To anesthetize the upper limb for surgery, both general and regional plexus anaesthesia are appropriate techniques. However, the best technique in the anaesthesiologist’s perspective might not necessarily result in the highest patient satisfaction. The aim of this study is to investigate patient satisfaction following general and regional anaesthesia, and to identify areas where anaesthesiologists can focus on improving patient care. Methods Patients scheduled for elective distal upper extremity surgery under either general or regional plexus anaesthesia were prospectively included. On the first postoperative day, patient satisfaction and main reason for dissatisfaction with the anaesthesia technique were investigated during a telephone interview. Results Of the 243 patients included in the current study, 79.8% report being “fully satisfied” with their anaesthesia technique. 32.1% of the patients who received regional anaesthesia reported not feeling “fully satisfied”. This figure is 5.5% following general anaesthesia. Main reason for dissatisfaction following regional anaesthesia are reported as “insufficient anaesthesia prior to surgery”, and “the discomfort of having a long-lasting insensate extremity postoperatively”. Conclusions Following regional plexus anaesthesia, a third of the patients are not “fully satisfied”. To optimize patient satisfaction following regional anaesthesia techniques, we advocate stronger focus on patient counselling preoperatively, addressing the issues of block failure and prolonged postoperative sensory and motor block.