Comparison of two peripheral regional analgesic techniques for primary elective total hip arthroplasty: a randomised clinical trial
Authors' conclusion
We found no statistically or clinically relevant difference between two motor-sparing peripheral regional analgesic techniques among patients undergoing primary elective total hip arthroplasty with multimodal analgesia.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing primary elective unilateral total hip arthroplasty under spinal anaesthesia with standardised multimodal analgesiacompleted the study
- Participants
- 62 patients
- Comparison
- PENG + lateral femoral cutaneous nerve blocks vs ESP block
- Anteriorn = 31
- Posteriorn = 31reference
- Primary endpoint
- IV morphine consumption
- Follow-up
- First 24 h postoperatively
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Morphine consumption at 24 h · 24 h
P > 0.99
Secondary outcomes
Pain scores, sensory block, complications, chronic postsurgical pain
- No differences in any of the secondary outcome measures between groups
Safety
| Outcome | Anterior | Posterior | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motor block | 1/31 | 5/31 | P = 0.09 |
Original publication
Comparison of two peripheral regional analgesic techniques for primary elective total hip arthroplasty: a randomised clinical trial. Anaesthesia. Published 21 July 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →