探究IPACK联合收肌管阻滞在全膝关节置换术后的临床镇痛效果及安全性。方法：研究对象选择 2019年6月至 2021 年 3 月在本院拟行全膝关节置换术的患者。一组患者采用IPACK 联合收肌管阻滞，另一组患者采用股神经阻滞联合腘窝上坐骨神经阻滞组。比较两组患者的视觉模拟评分（VAS）、术后因神经阻滞引起的感染血肿和神经损伤的发生情况、术后恶心呕吐和神经阻滞不良等的发生率以及患者术中舒芬太尼用量。结果：两组患者的VAS评分间没有统计学差异。两组患者的改良 Bromage 评分整体变化呈下降趋势，差异具有统计学差异，（P<0.001）。两组患者术后股四头肌肌力差异具有统计学意义。除了足下垂外，如术后感染、呕吐、神经损伤等不良反应的发生率未见明显差异。舒芬太尼用量两组比较差异没有统计学意义（P=0.142）。结论：IPACK 联合收肌管阻滞为全膝关节置换患者提供良好的术后镇痛效果，对患者术后患肢肌力影响小，有利于患者术后早期患肢运动功能恢复。

To explore the clinical analgesic effect and safety of IPack combined with adductor block after total knee arthroplasty. Methods: the subjects were patients who planned to undergo total knee arthroplasty in our hospital from June 2019 to March 2021. One group was treated with IPack combined with adductor block, and the other group was treated with femoral nerve block combined with superior popliteal sciatic nerve block. The visual analogue scale (VAS), the incidence of postoperative infection, hematoma and nerve injury caused by nerve block, the incidence of postoperative nausea, vomiting and poor nerve block, and the dosage of sufentanil were compared between the two groups. Results: there was no significant difference in VAS score between the two groups. The overall change of modified Bromage score between the two groups showed a downward trend, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The difference of quadriceps femoris muscle strength between the two groups was statistically significant. Except for foot drop, there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions such as postoperative infection, vomiting and nerve injury. There was no significant difference in the dosage of sufentanil between the two groups (P = 0.142). Conclusion: IPack combined with adductor block provides good postoperative analgesia for patients with total knee arthroplasty, has little effect on the muscle strength of the affected limb, and is conducive to the early recovery of motor function of the affected limb.