CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT02554864LILACUpdated Feb 27, 2019

Location of Injection of Local Anesthetics in the Adductor Canal Block

An interventional study of lidocaine and ropivacaine in Anesthesia and Adductor Canal Block, sponsored by Women's College Hospital. Completed at 1 site in Canada. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 50 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2019-02-27.

Sponsored by Women's College Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
108
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 50 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The adductor canal block (ACB) is the standard of care for analgesia after Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) repair. ACB is performed by injecting local anesthetic (freezing) in the subsartorial canal in the thigh which is about 7-10cm long. Preliminary evidence suggests that different injection sites within the canal may produce different degrees of analgesia and quadriceps motor block. This trial seeks to determine the effects of various ACB injection sites on postoperative analgesia and motor power following ACL repair.

Read the detailed description

Adductor canal block (ACB) is replacing femoral nerve block (FNB) as the peripheral nerve block of choice for knee surgery. The ACB aims to inject local anesthetics (LA) within the neurovascular sheath in the subsartorial adductor canal around the femoral nerve. The point where the sartorius muscle crosses over the femoral artery is generally the accepted site for performing ACB. Clinically, injecting LA in the adductor canal blocks the sensory innervation of the knee and thus offers pain relief that is similar to FNB while conserving motor power around the knee. While these benefits are desirable, the exact location for performing ACB that ensures these benefits, remains debatable. The subsartorial adductor canal itself is 7-10cm long and the anatomical location of the sensory and motor nerves that innervate the knee and its surrounding muscles in this canal may vary. This randomized controlled trial is designed to identify and refine the ACB technique by clinically determining the effects of various ACB injection locations on postoperative analgesia and quadriceps motor power following ACL repair.

02

Conditions studied

  • Anesthesia
  • Adductor Canal Block
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Women's College Hospital is the lead sponsor of 83 studies on the registry; 20 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 50 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients booked for anterior cruciate ligament surgery under general anesthesia
  • English speaking
  • BMI \<38 kg/m2

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Refusal or inability to provide informed consent
  • Allergy to local anesthetics
  • Contraindication to regional anesthesia including coagulopathy or bleeding - diathesis
  • Infection
  • Nerve Injury at the site of the nerve block
  • Malignancy at the site of the nerve block
  • History of drug and/or alcohol dependence
  • History of long term opioid intake or chronic pain disorder
  • History of pre-existing neuropathy in the operative leg
  • History of significant psychiatric conditions that may affect patient assessment
  • Inability to understand the informed consent and demands of the study
  • Allergy to any of the components of multi-modal analgesic regimen
  • Revision ACL repair
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Triple (Participant, Care provider, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
108 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Adductor Canal Block- Injection -Site A

    AC Block-Injection (lidocaine 2% and ropivacaine 1%) Site A - after the sartorius muscle crosses over the femoral artery

    Drug: lidocaine · Drug: ropivacaine

  • Active comparator
    Adductor Canal Block - Injection -Site B

    AC Block-Injection (lidocaine 2% and ropivacaine 1%) Site B - before the sartorius muscle crosses over the femoral artery

    Drug: lidocaine · Drug: ropivacaine

  • Active comparator
    Adductor Canal Block -Injection -Site C

    AC Block-Injection (lidocaine 2% and ropivacaine 1%) Site C - as the sartorius muscle crosses over the femoral artery

    Drug: lidocaine · Drug: ropivacaine

Interventions

  • Druglidocaine

    Local anesthetic

    Also known as: Xylocaine

  • Drugropivacaine

    Local anesthetic

    Also known as: Naropin

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Cumulative 24 Hour Oral Morphine Equivalent Consumption

    Post-Operative Analgesia

    Time frame: 24 hours

  2. Motor Power - Peak Force as measured by a dynamometer

    Percentage decrease in quadriceps motor strength at 30 minutes following adductor canal block compare to baseline

    Time frame: 30 Minutes post Block

Secondary outcomes

  1. Opioid Consumption

    Intra-operative opioid consumption

    Time frame: During surgical procedure

  2. Total opioids in Post Anesthetics (PAC)

    Cumulative oral morphine equivalent consumption in PACU

    Time frame: Total length of time in PACU (total time in minutes from arrival in PACU to discharge to the Surgical Day Care is between 60-180 minutes

  3. Pain Scores - Questionnaire

    Area under the curve for rest pain scores plotted against time during the first 24 hours

    Time frame: 24 hours post block

  4. Quality of Recovery (QoR-15)

    Quality of recovery measured using the QoR-15 at 24 hours postoperatively

    Time frame: 24 hours postoperatively

  5. Patient Satisfaction - Questionnaire

    Patient satisfaction with analgesia - NRS Pain Scale 0(no pain to 10(worst pain)

    Time frame: 24 hours postoperatively

  6. Hospital Discharge (Time to hospital discharge)

    Time to hospital discharge

    Time frame: Same day as surgical procedure

  7. Nerve Block Complications

    Presence/absence of nerve block complications during the first 24 hours postoperatively and 2 weeks after surgery

    Time frame: 24 hours postoperatively and 2 weeks postoperatively

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Women's College Hospital
    Toronto, Ontario M5S 1B2, Canada
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Mariano ER, Perlas A. Adductor canal block for total knee arthroplasty: the perfect recipe or just one ingredient? Anesthesiology. 2014 Mar;120(3):530-2. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000121. No abstract available. PubMed 24534851 ↗
  • Ilfeld BM, Hadzic A. Walking the tightrope after knee surgery: optimizing postoperative analgesia while minimizing quadriceps weakness. Anesthesiology. 2013 Feb;118(2):248-50. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318279fa3a. No abstract available. PubMed 23241724 ↗
  • Hanson NA, Derby RE, Auyong DB, Salinas FV, Delucca C, Nagy R, Yu Z, Slee AE. Ultrasound-guided adductor canal block for arthroscopic medial meniscectomy: a randomized, double-blind trial. Can J Anaesth. 2013 Sep;60(9):874-80. doi: 10.1007/s12630-013-9992-9. Epub 2013 Jul 3. PubMed 23820968 ↗
  • Manickam B, Perlas A, Duggan E, Brull R, Chan VW, Ramlogan R. Feasibility and efficacy of ultrasound-guided block of the saphenous nerve in the adductor canal. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2009 Nov-Dec;34(6):578-80. doi: 10.1097/aap.0b013e3181bfbf84. PubMed 19916251 ↗
  • Krombach J, Gray AT. Sonography for saphenous nerve block near the adductor canal. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2007 Jul-Aug;32(4):369-70. doi: 10.1016/j.rapm.2007.04.006. No abstract available. Erratum In: Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2007 Nov-Dec;32(6):536. PubMed 17720129 ↗
  • Davis JJ, Bond TS, Swenson JD. Adductor canal block: more than just the saphenous nerve? Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2009 Nov-Dec;34(6):618-9. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181bfbf00. No abstract available. PubMed 19901788 ↗
  • Jaeger P, Nielsen ZJ, Henningsen MH, Hilsted KL, Mathiesen O, Dahl JB. Adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block and quadriceps strength: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study in healthy volunteers. Anesthesiology. 2013 Feb;118(2):409-15. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318279fa0b. PubMed 23241723 ↗
  • Tsui BC, Ozelsel T. Ultrasound-guided transsartorial perifemoral artery approach for saphenous nerve block. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2009 Mar-Apr;34(2):177-8; author reply 178. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e31819a273e. No abstract available. PubMed 19282716 ↗
  • Jaeger P, Zaric D, Fomsgaard JS, Hilsted KL, Bjerregaard J, Gyrn J, Mathiesen O, Larsen TK, Dahl JB. Adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block for analgesia after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized, double-blind study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2013 Nov-Dec;38(6):526-32. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000015. PubMed 24121608 ↗
  • Grevstad U, Mathiesen O, Valentiner LS, Jaeger P, Hilsted KL, Dahl JB. Effect of adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block on quadriceps strength, mobilization, and pain after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized, blinded study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2015 Jan-Feb;40(1):3-10. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000169. PubMed 25376972 ↗
  • Mariano ER, Kim TE, Wagner MJ, Funck N, Harrison TK, Walters T, Giori N, Woolson S, Ganaway T, Howard SK. A randomized comparison of proximal and distal ultrasound-guided adductor canal catheter insertion sites for knee arthroplasty. J Ultrasound Med. 2014 Sep;33(9):1653-62. doi: 10.7863/ultra.33.9.1653. PubMed 25154949 ↗
  • Bendtsen TF, Moriggl B, Chan V, Pedersen EM, Borglum J. Redefining the adductor canal block. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2014 Sep-Oct;39(5):442-3. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000119. No abstract available. PubMed 25140514 ↗
  • Horn JL, Pitsch T, Salinas F, Benninger B. Anatomic basis to the ultrasound-guided approach for saphenous nerve blockade. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2009 Sep-Oct;34(5):486-9. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181ae11af. PubMed 19920424 ↗
  • Chi J, Chiu B, Cao Y, Liu X, Wang J, Balu N, Yuan C, Xu J. Assessment of femoral artery atherosclerosis at the adductor canal using 3D black-blood MRI. Clin Radiol. 2013 Apr;68(4):e213-21. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2012.12.002. Epub 2013 Jan 17. PubMed 23332436 ↗
  • Andersen HL, Andersen SL, Tranum-Jensen J. The spread of injectate during saphenous nerve block at the adductor canal: a cadaver study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2015 Feb;59(2):238-45. doi: 10.1111/aas.12451. Epub 2014 Dec 14. PubMed 25496028 ↗
  • Kapoor R, Adhikary SD, Siefring C, McQuillan PM. The saphenous nerve and its relationship to the nerve to the vastus medialis in and around the adductor canal: an anatomical study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012 Mar;56(3):365-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2011.02645.x. PubMed 22335278 ↗
  • Head SJ, Leung RC, Hackman GP, Seib R, Rondi K, Schwarz SK. Ultrasound-guided saphenous nerve block--within versus distal to the adductor canal: a proof-of-principle randomized trial. Can J Anaesth. 2015 Jan;62(1):37-44. doi: 10.1007/s12630-014-0255-1. Epub 2014 Oct 22. PubMed 25337966 ↗
  • Shah NA, Jain NP. Is continuous adductor canal block better than continuous femoral nerve block after total knee arthroplasty? Effect on ambulation ability, early functional recovery and pain control: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty. 2014 Nov;29(11):2224-9. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.06.010. Epub 2014 Jun 19. PubMed 25041873 ↗
  • Saranteas T, Anagnostis G, Paraskeuopoulos T, Koulalis D, Kokkalis Z, Nakou M, Anagnostopoulou S, Kostopanagiotou G. Anatomy and clinical implications of the ultrasound-guided subsartorial saphenous nerve block. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2011 Jul-Aug;36(4):399-402. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e318220f172. PubMed 21697687 ↗
  • Jenstrup MT, Jaeger P, Lund J, Fomsgaard JS, Bache S, Mathiesen O, Larsen TK, Dahl JB. Effects of adductor-canal-blockade on pain and ambulation after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012 Mar;56(3):357-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2011.02621.x. Epub 2012 Jan 4. PubMed 22221014 ↗
  • Espelund M, Fomsgaard JS, Haraszuk J, Mathiesen O, Dahl JB. Analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided adductor canal blockade after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2013 Jul;30(7):422-8. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e328360bdb9. PubMed 23549123 ↗
  • Kirkpatrick JD, Sites BD, Antonakakis JG. Preliminary experience with a new approach to performing an ultrasound-guided saphenous nerve block in the mid to proximal femur. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010 Mar-Apr;35(2):222-3. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181d24589. No abstract available. PubMed 20216039 ↗
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Feb 27, 2019, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02554864
Lead sponsor
Women's College Hospital
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Sep 18, 2015
Start date
Feb 22, 2016
Primary completion
Dec 15, 2017
Completion
Jan 2, 2018
Last update
Feb 27, 2019

Study contacts

Richard Brull, MD
principal investigator · University of Toronto, Women's College Hospital

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2019. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion