Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 May 17;103(20):e38247.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038247.

Comparison of fascia iliaca block with quadratus lumborum block for hip arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Comparison of fascia iliaca block with quadratus lumborum block for hip arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Yunqing Guo et al. Medicine (Baltimore). .

Abstract

Background: The efficacy of fascia iliaca block (FIB) versus quadratus lumborum block (QLB) remains controversial for pain management of hip arthroplasty. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of FIB versus QLB on the postoperative pain intensity of hip arthroplasty.

Methods: We have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases through July 2023 for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of FIB versus QLB on pain control of hip arthroplasty. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model or fixed-effect model based on the heterogeneity.

Results: Four randomized controlled trials and 234 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with QLB for hip arthroscopy, FIB was associated with substantially lower pain scores at 2 hours (mean difference [MD] = -0.49; 95% CI = -0.63 to -0.35; P < .00001) and pain scores at 12 hours (MD = -0.81; 95% CI = -1.36 to -0.26; P = .004), but showed no impact on pain scores at 24 hours (MD = -0.21; 95% CI = -0.57 to 0.15; P = .25), time to first rescue analgesia (standard mean difference = 0.70; 95% CI = -0.59 to 1.99; P = .29), analgesic consumption (MD = -4.80; 95% CI = -16.57 to 6.97; P = .42), or nausea and vomiting (odd ratio = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.32-1.35; P = .25).

Conclusions: FIB may be better than QLB for pain control after hip arthroplasty, as evidenced by the lower pain scores at 2 and 24 hours.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no funding and conflicts of interests to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flow diagram of study searching and selection process.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Forest plot for the meta-analysis of pain scores at 2 hours.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Forest plot for the meta-analysis of pain scores at 12 hours.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Forest plot for the meta-analysis of pain scores at 24 hours.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Forest plot for the meta-analysis of time to first rescue analgesia.
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Forest plot for the meta-analysis of analgesic consumption.
Figure 7.
Figure 7.
Forest plot for the meta-analysis of nausea and vomiting.

Similar articles

References

    1. Zhang B, Rao S, Mekkawy KL, et al. . Risk factors for pain after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Arthroplasty (London, England). 2023;5:19. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hannon CP, Keating TC, Lange JK, Ricciardi BF, Waddell BS, Della Valle CJ. Anesthesia and analgesia practices in total joint arthroplasty: a survey of the American association of hip and knee surgeons membership. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34:2872–7.e2. - PubMed
    1. Højer Karlsen AP, Geisler A, Petersen PL, Mathiesen O, Dahl JB. Postoperative pain treatment after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Pain. 2015;156:8–30. - PubMed
    1. Kato D, Takegami Y, Seki T, et al. . Differences in peri-hip articular pain after total hip arthroplasty between taper wedge stem and fit-and-fill stem. J Orthop. 2023;35:58–63. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hussain N, Brull R, Speer J, et al. . Analgesic benefits of the quadratus lumborum block in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2022;77:1152–62. - PubMed

MeSH terms