Analgesic and Functional Outcomes of the Pericapsular Nerve Group Block Versus the Quadratus Lumborum Block After Hip Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
In brief
Pericapsular nerve block matches quadratus lumborum block for hip surgery pain
A meta-analysis of seven randomized trials (536 patients) found no clinically important difference in postoperative pain scores between PENG and QLB blocks, with most estimates falling within the 1-point minimal important difference. Opioid use, nausea, vomiting and short-term safety were also similar, while a tentative early motor-sparing benefit of PENG remains unproven.
- Journal
- Pain research & management (Q1)
- Published
- 1 January 2026
- Study design
- Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
- Authors
- I-Ning Hsu, Yu-Pin Huang, Yu-Lin Tsai, Wen-Chung Tsai, Yuan-Yang Cheng, Liang-Jun Ou-Yang
- PMID
- 42702793
- DOI
- 10.1155/prm/7392040
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine (top studies of the week, 13 September 2026): PENG vs QLB blocks provide comparable hip surgery analgesia
- Picked for Anatomy (top studies of the week, 13 September 2026): PENG and QLB provide comparable analgesia after hip surgery
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block and quadratus lumborum block (QLB) are regional anesthesia techniques for postoperative analgesia after hip surgery. No meta-analysis has directly compared these techniques. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared analgesic, opioid-sparing, functional, and safety outcomes between PENG block and QLB. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for relevant articles until April 15, 2026. Head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PENG block with QLB were included. The primary outcome was postoperative pain, and the secondary outcomes were opioid consumption, functional recovery, and adverse events. Pain outcomes were pooled as standardized mean differences and converted to mean differences on a 0-10 scale for comparison with the 1-point minimal clinically important difference. RESULTS: Seven RCTs (536 patients) were included. No significant differences were observed between PENG block and QLB across eight pain assessment windows (four time points, at rest and during movement). After pain data conversion, six of eight pooled estimates fell within ±1 point, indicating no clinically important difference. Scores for the remaining two windows (early pain during movement and 24-h resting pain) were inconclusive because of high heterogeneity and very low certainty evidence. Notably, 24-h opioid consumption and nausea and vomiting incidence were similar between PENG block and QLB. Narrative synthesis suggested a preliminary, transient motor-sparing advantage with PENG in some RCTs, requiring confirmation in adequately powered trials. CONCLUSION: PENG block and QLB provide comparable analgesia, opioid-sparing benefits, and short-term safety after hip surgery. However, the evidence for early pain during movement and 24-h resting pain exhibited high heterogeneity and very low certainty of evidence and should be interpreted cautiously. A possible early motor-sparing benefit of PENG block is an exploratory signal and warrants further confirmation in adequately powered trials using objective functional endpoints.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.