No quadriceps muscle weakness following anterior quadratus lumborum block compared with placebo: a randomized, non-inferiority, blinded, volunteer trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Anterior quadratus lumborum block is a truncal block, applied in close proximity to the lumbar plexus, potentially causing lower limb weakness. This trial aimed to evaluate whether a unilateral anterior quadratus lumborum block caused quadriceps muscle weakness compared with placebo. METHODS: In this randomized, non-inferiority, triple-blind trial, 20 healthy volunteers received an active unilateral anterior quadratus lumborum block with 30 mL ropivacaine 0.75% and a placebo block on the contralateral side. Primary outcome was change in maximal quadriceps muscle strength from baseline to 60 min postblock compared with placebo. Secondary outcomes were change in single-leg 6 m timed hop test, change in Timed-Up and Go test, change in mean arterial pressure from baseline to 30 min postblock and dermatomal affection. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in changes in maximal quadriceps muscle strength between active and placebo block; 15.88 N (95% CI -12.19 to +43.94), pnon-inf=0.003, indicating non-inferiority. Timed-Up and Go test was performed significantly faster 60 min postblock; -0.23 s (95% CI -0.38 to -0.08, p=0.005). Mean change in mean arterial pressure from baseline to 30 min postblock was 4.25 mm Hg (95% CI 0.24 to 8.26, p=0.04). Dermatome testing revealed an affection primarily of the lower abdomen (Th10-L1) with the active block. CONCLUSION: In this randomized controlled trial including healthy volunteers a unilateral anterior quadratus lumborum block does not cause statistical or clinical significant motor block of the quadriceps muscle compared with placebo. When administered correctly, the block can be used for procedures where early postoperative mobilization is essential. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05023343.

Muscle Function Tests as Supportive Outcome Measures for Performance-Based and Self-Reported Physical Function in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: Exploratory Analysis of Baseline Data From a Randomized Trial.

ABSTRACT: Holm, PM, Kemnitz, J, Bandholm, T, Wernbom, M, Schrøder, HM, and Skou, ST. Muscle function tests as supportive outcome measures for performance-based and self-reported physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis: Exploratory analysis of baseline data from a randomized trial. J Strength Cond Res 36(9): 2635-2642, 2022-Uncertainty on the role of muscle function in relation to physical function in knee osteoarthritis (KOA) persists. This study aimed to assess the associations between muscle function and performance-based and self-reported physical function in patients with KOA. Physical function in 80 subjects with symptomatic and radiographic KOA was assessed using 40-m fast-paced walk, 30-second chair stand, 9-step stair climb tests, and the subscale activities of daily living from the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-ADL). Measurements of muscle function included leg extension (LE) power, knee extension (KE) torque, and estimated leg press one repetition maximum (LP RM). Associations were investigated using multivariable hierarchical linear regressions adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, self-reported physical activity, and thigh muscle lean area. Leg extension power was significantly associated with 40-m walk, stair climb, and 30-second chair stand, explaining 18, 8, and 3% of additional variance, respectively. Knee extension torque explained 13, 7, 17, and 7% of additional variance in the 40-m walk, stair climb, 30-second chair stand, and KOOS-ADL, respectively. Leg press one repetition maximum explained 11% of additional variance in the 30-second chair stand. In conclusion, LE power was the best explanatory variable for performance on the 40-m walk and stair climb tests, whereas KE torque best explained chair stand performance. Only KE torque was associated with KOOS-ADL. Our results highlight the importance of selecting supportive muscle function tests based on the specific physical function and suggest that other factors may be more important for certain physical function outcomes. Level of significance p < 0.05. Trial identifier: NCT03215602.

Intrarater Reliability and Agreement of Recommended Performance-Based Tests and Common Muscle Function Tests in Knee Osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Some uncertainty persists regarding the reproducibility of the recommended core set of performance-based tests, as well as common muscle function tests, when applied in individuals with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). The purpose of this study was to investigate the intrarater reliability and agreement of the recommended core set of performance-based tests and common muscle function tests in KOA. METHODS: Participants (N=40) with radiographic and/or symptomatic KOA were evaluated twice with a 3-day interval between test sessions using the following tests: Leg extensor (LE) maximal muscle power measured in a Nottingham Power Rig; knee extensor (KE) peak isometric strength measured with a handheld dynamometer; 40-m walk test; 30-second chair-stand test; and 9-step stair climb test. Reliability was assessed using a 2-way, mixed-effects, single-measures model (3,1), absolute agreement-type intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement was assessed using 95% limits of agreement (LOA) and LOA relative to the mean score from test and retest (LOA-%). RESULTS: Reliability for all tests was very high (ICC ≥ 0.97). LOA (LOA-%) was ±32.3 watt (W) (±22%) for LE power; ±22.7 N·m (±24%) for KE strength; ±0.2 m/s (±10%) for 40-m walk test; ±2.4 repetitions (±14%) for 30-second chair-stand test; and ±2 second (±20%) for stair climb test. A potential participant learning effect was found for all 3 performance-based tests, indicated by the significantly better scores at retest. DISCUSSION: The very high reliability found for the performance-based tests supports findings from previous studies and confirms discriminate reliability of these tests on a group level. Also, very high reliability estimates were demonstrated for both muscle function tests. This study also provided estimates of agreement for both performance-based and muscle function tests, which are important to consider when using these tests on an individual level in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: When using these tests to monitor changes over time in the clinic, depending on the test, improvements of less than 10% to 24% could be a result of measurement error alone and therefore may not be considered an actual improvement after treatment.