连续收肌管阻滞镇痛在双膝关节一期置换术后疼痛控制研究

目的：探讨连续收肌管阻滞在双膝关节一期置换术后疼痛控制效果。方法：回顾性分析2018年1月至2019年1月收治的24例行双膝关节一期置换术,且术后行连续收肌管阻滞镇痛患者资料。男6例,女18例;年龄60~72（65.05±5.82）岁。患者术后双膝均行连续收肌管阻滞,配合自控镇痛系统。术后4、6、12、24、36、48 h行静息状态及被动运动状态视觉模拟评分（visual analogue scale,VAS）;随访患者术后1周及1、3、6个月膝关节活动度;对患者术后6个月膝关节功能进行评分,采用美国特种外科医院（Hospital for Special Surgery,HSS）膝关节评分标准;记录不良反应及并发症。结果：行连续收肌管阻滞患者术后各时点静息状态、被动运动状态VAS均分<3分。患者术后膝关节活动度较好,术后6个月HSS评分优20例,良2例,可1例,差1例。术后仅4例出现恶心呕吐,无一例发生心动过缓、深静脉血栓等严重不良反应及并发症。结论：连续收肌管阻滞在双膝关节一期置换术后疼痛控制方面效果显著,且不良反应较少。     

四种多模式镇痛方案对全膝关节置换术后康复影响的回顾性分析

目的 回顾性分析四种多模式镇痛方案对全膝关节置换术后患者康复的影响。方法 通过提取电子病历系统中的数据,回顾性分析2015年4月至2020年4月行初次单侧全膝关节置换术的537例骨关节炎患者,采用四种多模式镇痛方案：A组耳穴贴压联合股神经阻滞,B组耳穴贴压联合隐神经阻滞,C组塞来昔布联合股神经阻滞,D组塞来昔布联合隐神经阻滞。统计术前一般资料及术后第1、3、7天VAS评分、股四头肌肌力、匹兹堡睡眠质量指数（PSQI）量表评分、膝关节主动活动度。结果 四组术前一般资料比较差异无统计学意义。术后第3和7天,A组和B组的VAS评分均比C组和D组低。A组和C组股四头肌肌力在术后第1和3天明显比B组和D组差。A组和B组术后第1、3、7天PSQI量表评分均低于同时间段的C组和D组。A组和B组术后第1和3天膝关节主动活动度比C组和D组大。结论 全膝关节置换术患者采用耳穴贴压联合单次收肌管隐神经阻滞更能有效缓解术后疼痛,改善睡眠,促进早期功能锻炼,达到快速康复的效果。     

多模式镇痛与静脉自控镇痛对类风湿关节炎全膝关节置换术围手术期镇痛效果的病例对照研究

目的 :比较多模式镇痛与静脉自控镇痛对类风湿关节炎患者全膝关节置换围手术期的镇痛效果。方法 :自2015年6月至2016年6月对40例类风湿关节炎患者行单侧全膝关节置换术治疗,分为2组。静脉自控镇痛组20例,男3例,女17例,平均年龄(59.6±2.3)岁;多模式镇痛组20例,男2例,女18例,平均年龄(56.3±1.3)岁。静脉自控镇痛组采用静脉镇痛泵控制性滴入舒芬太尼镇痛,多模式镇痛组采用连续股神经阻滞、膝关节局部注射及丁丙诺啡贴剂联合镇痛方案,比较两组患者全膝关节置换术后48 h内VAS评分及不良反应发生率,术后1周HSS评分,评价两种镇痛模式的优劣。结果:术后6、24 h,多模式镇痛组患者VAS评分低于静脉自控镇痛组;术后48 h在运动和静止状态下,多模式镇痛组患者VAS评分均低于静脉自控镇痛组。术后1周多模式镇痛组HSS评分高于静脉自控镇痛组,HSS评分中的功能、疼痛及活动度评分,多模式镇痛组优于静脉自控镇痛组,但肌力评分两组差异无统计学意义。结论:多模式镇痛效果好,不良反应少,是类风湿关节炎患者全膝关节置换围手术期理想的镇痛方案。     

髂筋膜间隙阻滞对前外侧小切口入路全髋置换术的影响

目的:比较单纯椎管内麻醉与联合髂筋膜间隙阻滞（fascia iliaca compartment block,FICB）对前外侧小切口（orthopädische chirurgie München,OCM）入路全髋关节置换术（total hip arthroplasty,THA）的影响分析。方法：2019年1月至2020年10月择期行单侧全髋关节置换术患者,分别采用椎管内麻醉复合超声引导下髂筋膜间隙阻滞（A组30例）和单纯椎管内麻醉（B组30例）。两组患者椎管内用药成分相同,术后采用相同静脉镇痛治疗方案。观察比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、臀中肌剥离程度、股骨大转子劈裂情况,术后髋关节疼痛视觉模拟评分（visual analogue scale,VAS）,术前及术后48 h 股四头肌及髋关节外展肌力,术后髋关节功能Harris评分。结果：所有患者获得随访,时间48~62（54.2±4.0）周。A组患者切口长度、手术时间及术中出血量明显低于B组（P<0.05）。A组术后24 h血红蛋白水平明显高于B组（P<0.05）。A组术后48 h髋关节外展肌力明显高于B组（P<0.05）。A组患者臀中肌剥离程度明显低于B组（P<0.05）。A组患者术后8、12、24 h VAS明显低于B组（P<0.05）;A组患者术后2、8周Harris评分明显高于B组（P<0.05）。结论：超声引导下髂筋膜间隙阻滞应用于侧卧位OCM入路THA,能明显缩短手术时间、减少术中出血量、减少术中臀中肌剥离情况等髋关节周围创伤及改善患者术后早期疼痛,有利于OCM入路临床操作及患者术后快速康复。     

关节周围注射罗哌卡因混合液联合股神经阻滞用于膝关节置换术后镇痛

目的:比较连续股神经阻滞联合关节周围注射罗哌卡因混合液与单纯连续股神经阻滞对全膝关节置换(TKA)术后疼痛的影响。方法:选择ASA Ⅰ~Ⅱ级择期在腰硬联合麻醉下行TKA的患者60例,随机分为连续股神经阻滞联合关节周围注射罗哌卡因混合液组(A组)和连续股神经阻滞组(B组)各30例,观察和比较两组术后静息及被动运动时视觉模拟评分(VAS)、肌力分级、患者镇痛满意度、补救镇痛情况、不良反应及术后下肢深静脉血栓形成情况。结果:A组术后8、12、24 h静息VAS评分分别为(1.33±0.49)、(1.40±0.51)、(1.13±0.64),术后4、8、12、24 h运动VAS评分分别为(1.73±0.46)、(1.67±0.48)、(1.93±0.46)、(1.53±0.64),均明显低于B组(P0.05或0.01)。两组肌力均良好,无统计学差异。A组镇痛满意度评分高于B组(P0.05),其中"非常好+很好"占66.7%,B组占40%。两组不良反应发生率、补救镇痛和术后深静脉血栓发生情况差异无统计学意义。结论:连续股神经阻滞联合关节周围注射罗哌卡因混合液法较单纯连续股神经阻滞可更加有效降低全膝关节置换术后的疼痛评分,且病人满意度高。     

刺激型导管连续股神经阻滞术后镇痛效果观察

目的 观察刺激型导管连续股神经阻滞在全膝关节置换术后的镇痛效果.方法 选择ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级行单侧全膝关节置换术患者80例.随机均分为刺激型导管组(S组)与普通型导管组(N组),全麻诱导前置入连续股神经阻滞导管.两组术后经导管均持续输注0.2%罗哌卡因5 ml/h,持续3 d.记录操作时间、起效时间、阻滞完善率、患者疼痛VAS评分与满意度评分及不良反应.结果 S组阻滞起效较快,完善率较高,操作时间延长(P<0.01);两组VAS评分及满意度评分差异无统计学意义.结论 刺激型导管用于股神经阻滞术后镇痛起效快,阻滞完善,但操作时间延长,镇痛效果无明显改善.     

超声引导下不同入路髂筋膜间隙阻滞用于老年患者股骨近端防旋髓内针内固定术围术期镇痛效果的比较

目的 比较超声引导下腹股沟韧带上髂筋膜间隙阻滞（S-FICB）与腹股沟韧带下髂筋膜间隙阻滞（I-FICB）在行股骨近端防旋髓内针内固定术老年患者围术期的镇痛作用。
方法 限期行股骨近端防旋髓内针内固定术的股骨粗隆间骨折患者80例,男43例,女37例,年龄65～85岁,ASA Ⅰ—Ⅲ级,随机分为两组：S-FICB组（S组）和I-FICB组（I组）,每组40例。S组和I组分别注射0.4%罗哌卡因40 ml行S-FICB和I-FICB。记录阻滞操作时间、股神经及股外侧皮神经阻滞起效时间及阻滞效果。记录术后2、6、12、24、48 h静息及运动时VAS疼痛评分、自控镇痛按压次数及补救镇痛情况。记录术后不良反应的发生情况。
结果 两组阻滞操作时间、股神经阻滞效果差异无统计学意义。S组股神经及股外侧皮神经阻滞起效时间明显短于I组（P<0.05）,股外侧皮神经阻滞效果明显优于I组（P<0.05）。S组术后2、6、12 h运动时VAS疼痛评分明显低于I组（P<0.05）。两组术后自控镇痛、补救镇痛及不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义。
结论 与I-FICB比较,S-FICB阻滞起效更快,股外侧皮神经阻滞效果更好,患者术后变换体位时镇痛效果更好。     

连续腰丛神经阻滞或连续股神经阻滞用于全膝关节置换术后镇痛的比较

目的 比较连续腰丛神经阻滞或连续股神经阻滞对全膝关节置换术后镇痛的效果.方法 50例择期腰麻下行单侧全膝关节置换的患者使用神经刺激器引导,随机均分为连续腰丛神经阻滞组(CLPB组)和连续股神经阻滞组(CFNB组).术后镇痛负荷剂量0.2％罗哌卡因0.4ml/kg,背景剂量0.2％罗哌卡因5 ml/h,冲击剂量2 ml/15 min,保留镇痛48 h.记录术后6、12、24、48 h时静息状态VAS评分,术后24、48 h膝关节功能锻炼时VAS评分和肌力评分.结果 CLPB组术后各时点静息状态和功能锻炼VAS评分均明显低于CFNB组(P＜0.05),肌力评分两组间差异无统计学意义.两组术后镇痛期间均无明显不良反应.结论 连续腰丛神经阻滞对于全膝关节术后镇痛的临床效果优于连续股神经阻滞.     

膝关节置换术后两种股神经阻滞镇痛比较

[目的]评价不同镇痛模式在全膝关节置换术后的镇痛效果。[方法]全膝关节置换手术40例,随机分为两种股神经阻滞方法进行术后镇痛,即连续股神经阻滞(连续组)(20例)和单次股神经阻滞联合患者自控静脉镇痛组(单次组)(20例)。连续组术前0.5%罗哌卡因30 ml行股神经阻滞并置管,术后0.2%罗哌卡因连续股神经自控镇痛;单次组术前行0.5%罗哌卡因30 ml单次股神经阻滞,术后0.2μg/kg舒芬太尼自控镇痛。观察指标:记录两组术后4、8、12、24、36及48 h术后静息、主动功能锻炼(AFE)及持续被动功能锻炼(CPM)状态下疼痛VAS评分情况,记录恶心、呕吐、嗜睡不良反应发生率、镇痛泵按压次数及追加哌替啶次数。[结果]术后4、8、12、24h静息VAS评分连续组和单次组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05);术后36、48 h静息VAS评分连续组显著低于单次组,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后24 h的AFE和CPM状态下VAS评分比较,两组差异无统计学意义(P0.05);而术后36、48 h,连续组显著低于单次组,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后4、8、12 h按压次数两组差异无统计学意义(P),而术后24、48、36 h连续组按压次数明显低于单次组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后不良反应、追加哌替啶例数连续组明显高于单次组,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]全膝关节置换术后,连续股神经阻滞镇痛优于单次股神经阻滞联合患者自控静脉镇痛,且前者不良反应少,患者满意度高。     

超声引导下连续股神经阻滞用于全膝关节置换术后的镇痛效果

目的 观察超声引导下连续股神经阻滞(CFNB)用于全膝关节置换术(TKA)后的镇痛效果.方法 拟行单侧全膝关节置换术患者40例,随机均分为两组.PCIA组患者术后持续静脉输注芬太尼镇痛,PCNA组行超声引导下罗哌卡因连续股神经阻滞,两组均持续镇痛2d.记录静息、持续被动运动(功能锻炼)时的VAS评分、患肢主动关节屈曲角度、肌力分级、镇静程度和不良反应发生情况.结果 PCNA组患者术后8、12、24、48 h静息时和术后48 h功能锻炼时VAS评分均明显低于PCIA组(P＜0.05或P＜0.01).PCNA组患者术后24、48 h患肢主动关节屈曲角度明显大于PCIA组(P＜0.01).结论 超声引导下连续股神经阻滞用于TKA术后镇痛效果良好,对肌力影响小,不良反应发生率低,是TKA术后较为理想的镇痛方法.     

静脉注射帕瑞昔布联合股神经阻滞用于老年病人膝关节置换术后镇痛及膝关节功能康复的效果

目的 评价静脉注射帕瑞昔布联合股神经阻滞用于老年病人膝关节置换术后镇痛及膝关节功能康复的效果.方法 拟在全身麻醉下行单侧膝关节置换术老年病人40例,ASA分级Ⅱ级,年龄65～74岁,体重45～90 kg,采用随机数字表法,将其随机分为2组:单纯股神经阻滞组(FNB组,n＝20)和股神经阻滞联合间断静脉注射帕瑞昔布组(FNB-Pa组,n＝20).FNB组术毕时通过股神经阻滞导管注入0.25％罗哌卡因25 ml镇痛,每8h给药1次,至术后72 h;FNB-Pa组在术毕前30 min、术后12、24、48 h分别静脉注射帕瑞昔布40 mg;股神经阻滞用药同FNB组,至术后72 h.于术后2、12、24、36、48及72 h时记录静态时VAS评分,并于术后36、48及72 h时记录动态时VAS评分.于术前、术后24、48及72 h对患膝关节功能进行评分(HSS评分);并记录有关不良反应的发生情况.结果 FNB-Pa组术后静态、动态时VAS评分均比FNB组明显降低(P<0.05).与术前比较,术后两组病人HSS评分均明显提高(P<0.05或0.01);FNB- Pa组术后48、72 h HSS评分明显高于FNB组(P<0.05).两组均未见有关不良反应发生.结论 股神经阻滞联合间断静脉注射帕瑞昔布,可安全、有效地缓解老年病人膝关节置换术后静态和动态时疼痛,有助于术后关节功能的康复.     

Additional Peripheral Nerve Block to Periarticular Injection Has No Benefit for Patients Undergoing TKA: A Factorial Propensity Score–Matched Analysis Comparing Four Multimodal Analgesic Techniques

BackgroundControversy remains over what and how many analgesic techniques are required as the most effective multimodal pain regimen in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of additional analgesic methods combined with periarticular injection (PAI) analgesia for TKA.MethodsUsing retrospective cohort data, patients undergoing TKA with spinal anesthesia and PAI were divided into 4 groups. Group A (control) comprised 66 patients; group B (73 patients) had additional adductor canal block; group C (70 patients) obtained additional femoral nerve block, and group D (73 patients) received additional adductor canal block and intrathecal morphine. Propensity score matching was applied to compare visual analog scale (VAS) for pain intensity, cumulative morphine use (CMU), knee flexion angle, straight leg raise, length of hospital stay, and postoperative nausea and vomiting.ResultsThere was no significant difference regarding VAS and morphine use, when either group B or C was compared with group A. Group D had significantly lower VAS than groups A, B, and C during the first 24 hours after surgery and required significantly less CMU than groups A and B. However, the pain score of group D increased afterward, with significantly longer length of hospital stay than groups A and B. There was no difference in straight leg raise among the groups.ConclusionAdditional peripheral nerve block to PAI provides no benefit for patients undergoing TKA. Adjuvant intrathecal morphine could significantly reduce the VAS and CMU in the acute postoperative period; however, rebound pain with prolonged hospital stays was observed.     

股神经阻滞下手法松解术治疗全膝关节置换术后僵硬

目的探讨股神经神经阻滞镇痛下手法松解术治疗全膝关节置换术后僵硬的临床疗效。 方法自2013年1月至2017年12月,山东大学齐鲁医院(青岛)关节外科32例全膝关节置换术后僵硬的患者纳入本研究。在B超引导下连续股神经阻滞镇痛后行手法松解术,松解完毕后患者行主被动功能康复锻炼。记录术前及术后膝关节的屈曲度、美国膝关节学会评分(KSS)及功能锻炼时的视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评分。所得计量资料采用配对t检验。 结果32例患者平均随访(20.4±3.1)周。松解前膝关节主动屈曲度平均(70.0±10. 8)°,松解后末次随访主动屈曲度平均(106.4±7.9)°,平均改善(36.9±7.5)°(t＝-28.5,P<0.05)。松解前KSS评分平均(78.3±2.3)分,松解后末次随访KSS评分平均(88.3±2.7)分,差异具有统计学意义(t＝-27.1,P<0.05)。功能锻炼时VAS评分平均(4.5±1.1)分,为中度疼痛。随访无假体周围骨折、伸膝装置损伤、异位骨化等并发症。 结论股神经神经阻滞镇痛下手法松解术能有效改善全膝关节置换术后僵硬,缓解患者功能锻炼时的疼痛,具有良好的临床效果和较低的并发症。     

Comparison of Analgesic Efficacies of the iPACK (Interspace Between the Popliteal Artery and Capsule of the Posterior Knee) and Genicular Nerve Blocks Used in Combination With the Continuous Adductor Canal Block After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BackgroundThe interspace between the popliteal artery and capsule of the posterior knee (iPACK) block and the genicular nerve block (GNB) are motor-sparing nerve blocks used for knee pain relief. We compared the analgesic efficacies of ultrasound-guided iPACK block and GNB when combined with continuous adductor canal block after total knee arthroplasty.MethodsIn this randomized control study, 132 total knee arthroplasty patients were assigned to the iPACK, GNB, and iPACK + GNB groups. All patients received combined spinal anesthesia and continuous adductor canal block. The primary outcome was the 8-hour postoperative pain score during movement. Secondary outcomes were pain scores, posterior knee pain, intravenous morphine consumption, and tibial and common peroneal nerve sensorimotor function. All included patients completed the study.ResultsThe 4-hour and 8-hour postoperative pain scores during movement were significantly lower in the iPACK + GNB group than that in the iPACK group (−2.5 [3.6, 1.3]; P < .001 and −2 [-3, −1]; P < .001, respectively). The differences in rating pain scores and posterior knee pain were not clinically relevant. The iPACK group demonstrated a significantly higher intravenous morphine consumption than did the GNB and iPACK + GNB groups during the first 48 hours postoperatively (P < .001) but were not clinically relevant. There was no incidence of complete sensorimotor blockade in any of the groups.ConclusionThe iPACK–GNB combination relieved pain during movement better than the iPACK block alone during the 8 hours postoperatively after total knee arthroplasty in setting of multimodal analgesia such as adductor canal block.     

超声引导联合神经刺激隐神经阻滞干预全膝关节置换术后患者的效果

目的观察超声引导联合神经刺激隐神经阻滞(SNB)对全膝关节置换术(TKA)后患者的干预效果。方法将50例接受单侧TKA的老年膝关节骨性关节炎(OA)患者随机分为A、B组(各25例)。对A组于TKA麻醉前行超声联合神经刺激仪引导股神经阻滞(FNB),B组采用超声联合神经刺激仪引导SNB。对比2组术前及术后24 h、48 h、72 h、1周和2周时视觉模拟评分(VAS)、膝关节最大屈曲度和股四头肌肌力,术后运动恢复及感觉恢复时间,并统计不良反应。结果2组术后各时间点VAS差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。A组术后48 h、72 h、1周、2周膝关节最大屈曲度均小于B组(P均<0.05),股四头肌肌力术后24 h、48 h及72 h均低于B组(P均<0.05)。A组运动恢复时间为术后(25.28±4.55)h,感觉恢复时间为术后(33.20±2.92)h,均长于B组[(14.64±2.16)h、(28.84±3.27)h,P均<0.001]。术后2周内,A组2例出现呕吐,B组1例头晕、1例呕吐;未见低血压等不良反应。结论超声引导联合神经刺激SNB干预对TKA后OA患者安全有效,且促进感觉及运动功能恢复效果优于FNB。     

A comparison of ultrasound alone vs ultrasound with nerve stimulation guidance for continuous femoral nerve block in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty

Study ObjectiveTo compare analgesic efficacy of ultrasound (US) guidance alone and US guidance combined with nerve stimulation (NS) for continuous femoral nerve block (CFNB) in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA).DesignProspective, randomized double-blind trial.SettingPostanesthesia care unit and general ward.PatientsFifty American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status I to II patients undergoing TKA under spinal anesthesia.InterventionsIn group A (n = 25), an 18-gauge Tuohy needle was directed at the lower mid-part of the femoral nerve, and a nonstimulating catheter was inserted through the needle under US guidance. In group B (n = 25), an 18-gauge Tuohy needle and stimulating catheter were directed to the lower part of femoral nerve under US guidance, and quadriceps muscle contraction was checked using NS. All patients received a 20-mL loading dose of 0.2% ropivacaine, a continuous infusion of 4 mL/h, and a 4-mL bolus of 0.2% ropivacaine with a lockout time of 60 minutes for patient-controlled analgesia.MeasurementsThe primary outcome was resting and exercising pain quality assessed by numeric rating scale. Other outcomes included procedure time for correct catheter placement, block failure rate, patient satisfaction for postoperative pain control, total dose of local anesthetic, additional opioid requirement, and adverse effects postoperatively.Main ResultsThere were no significant differences between groups in resting and exercising numeric rating scale. Procedure times were longer in group B than group A (P < .05). There were no significant differences between groups in block failure rate or other outcomes.ConclusionsUS-guided CFNB was associated with similar analgesic efficacy and block failure rate and reduced procedure time compared to US with NS guidance for CFNB in patients undergoing TKA.     

Efficacy of Two Unique Combinations of Nerve Blocks on Postoperative Pain and Functional Outcome After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective,Double-Blind,Randomized Controlled Study

BackgroundThis study aimed to explore the efficacy of two unique combinations of nerve blocks on postoperative pain and functional outcome after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsPatients scheduled for TKA were randomized to receive a combination of adductor canal block (ACB) + infiltration between the popliteal artery and capsule of the posterior knee block (IPACK) + sham obturator nerve block (ONB) + sham lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block (LFCNB) (control group), or a combination of ACB + IPACK + ONB + sham LFCNB (triple nerve block group), or a combination of ACB + IPACK + ONB + LFCNB (quadruple nerve block group). All patients received local infiltration analgesia. Primary outcome was postoperative morphine consumption. Secondary outcomes were the time until first rescue analgesia, postoperative pain assessed on the visual analog scale (VAS), QoR-15 score, functional recovery of knee, and postoperative complications.ResultsCompared with the control group, the triple and quadruple nerve block groups showed significantly lower postoperative morphine consumption (17.2 ± 9.7 mg vs. 11.2 ± 7.0 mg vs. 11.4 ± 6.4 mg, P = .001). These two groups also showed significantly longer time until first rescue analgesia (P = .007 and .010, respectively, analyzed with Kaplan-Meier method), significantly lower VAS scores on postoperative day 1 (P < .01), significantly better QoR-15 scores on postoperative days 1 and 2 (P < .001), and significantly better functional recovery of knee including range of motion (P = .002 and .001 on postoperative days 1 and 2), and daily ambulation distance (P < .001 and P = .004 on postoperative days 1 and 2). However, the absolute change in morphine consumption, VAS scores, and QoR-15 scores did not exceed the reported minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) (morphine consumption: 10 mg; VAS scores: 1.5 at rest and 1.8 during movement; QoR-15 scores: 8.0). The MCIDs of other outcomes have not been reported in literature. The triple and quadruple nerve block groups showed no significant differences in these outcomes between each other. The three groups did not show a significant difference in complication rates.ConclusionAdding ONB or ONB + LFCNB to ACB + IPACK can statistically reduce morphine consumption, improve early pain relief, and functional recovery. However, the absolute change in morphine consumption, VAS scores, and QoR-15 scores did not exceed the MCIDs. Based on our findings and considering the sample size of this study, there is not enough clinical evidence to support the triple or quadruple nerve block use within a multimodal analgesic pathway after TKA.