Study Country Comparison and no. of the included patients FICB strategy Outcome parameters Primary conclusions Preoperative use Foss et al. 2007 [24 ] Denmark FICB = 24 vs IM morphine = 24 40 mL 1.0% mepivacaine VRS (rest/movement), total morphine consumption FICB provided better pain relief at all times and at all measurements compared to IM morphine McRae et al.2015 [25 ] Australia FICB = 11 vs standard care (IV morphine) = 13 15–20 mL 2% lidocaine, weight-dependent NRS, adverse events FICB group had a greater reduction in pain than those who received standard care Wennberg et al. 2019 [26 ] Sweden FICB = 66 vs placebo (saline) = 61 (adjunctive therapy) 30 mL 0.2% ropivacaine VAS Low-dose FICB improved pain management as a pain-relieving adjuvant to other analgesics Pasquier et al. 2019 [27 ] Switzerland FICB = 15 vs placebo (saline) = 15 (adjunctive therapy) 30 mL 0.5% bupivacaine NRS (rest/movement), total morphine consumption Anatomic landmark-based FICB did not help reduce pain after prehospital morphine Godoy Monzón et al. 2010 [28 ] Argentina FICB = 62 vs IV NSAIDs (Diclofenac or Ketorolac) = 92 0.3 mL/kg 0.25% bupivacaine VAS FICB can provide equally effective analgesia as NSAIDs for up to 8 h Ma et al. 2018 [29 ] China CFICB = 44 vs oral drugs (tramadol and paracetamol) = 44 50 mL 0.4% ropivacaine, 5 mL/h 0.2% ropivacaine continuously VAS (rest/movement), patients’ satisfaction, side effects, length of hospital stay Patients treated with CFICB received better analgesia both at rest and at movement compared to traditional analgesia Newman et al. 2013 [30 ] UK FICB = 56 vs FNB = 51 20–30 mL 0.5% levobupivacaine, weight-dependent VAS, opioid consumption Patients treated with FNB had better pain control and less morphine requirement Zhou et al. 2019 [31 ] China FICB = 77 vs FONB = 77 35 mL 0.4% ropivacaine VAS (rest/exercise), requirement for analgesic drugs, postoperative complications Both FONB and FICB were effective in acute pain control. FONB performed better in reducing pain and function recovery Cooper et al. 2019 [32 ] Australia FICB = 52 vs FNB = 48 20 mL 0.5% levobupivacaine NRS FICB can provide equivalent analgesia effect as FNB for femur fracture patients Reavley et al. 2015 [33 ] UK FICB = 88 vs “3-in-1”block = 90 2 mg/kg 0.5% bupivacaine VAS FICB was as effective as “3-in-1” block for immediate pain relief Aprato et al. 2018 [34 ] Italy FICB = 70 vs IAHI = 50 40 mL 0.25% ropivacaine NRS (rest/movement), additional analgesic drug, adverse events IAHI provided better pain management and reduced systemic analgesia consumption compared with FICB Wennberg et al. 2019 [35 ] Sweden FICB = 65 vs control = 60 30 mL 2 mg/mL ropivacaine Changes of cognitive status FICB did not affect cognitive status in this study Application before surgical anesthesia Yun et al. 2009 [36 ] Korea FICB = 20 vs IV alfentanil = 20 30 mL 0.375% ropivacaine Time to achieve SA, VAS, quality of patient positioning, patient acceptance FICB was more efficacious than IV alfentanil with better pain control during positioning and shorter time to achieve SA as well Diakomi et al. 2014 [37 ] Greece FICB = 21 vs IV fentanyl = 20 40 mL 0.5% ropivacaine Time needed and quality of position, NRS, postoperative analgesia, morphine consumption, patient satisfaction Patients who received FICB showed significantly lower pain score, shorter spinal performance time, and better quality of position Madabushi et al. 2016 [38 ] India FICB = 30 vs IV fentanyl = 30 30 mL 0.375% ropivacaine VAS, sitting angle, positioning quality, time to perform SA, postoperative analgesic requirement Patients who received FICB needed less time for SA and had better quality of positioning accompanied by superior analgesia Kacha et al. 2018 [39 ] India FICB = 50 vs placebo (normal saline) = 50 30 mL 0.25% ropivacaine VAS, time of positioning SA, total duration of analgesia FICB effectively provided analgesia during positioning for SA and significantly extended the total duration of analgesia Postoperative use Temelkovska-Stevanovska et al. 2014 [40 ] Macedonia FICB = 30 vs FNB = 30 40 mL 0.25% bupivacaine VDS (rest/movement), additional analgesia, and duration for the first time, side effects FNB provided superior postoperative pain relief versus FICB, and lower amount of supplemental analgesia Deniz et al. 2014 [41 ] Turkey FICB = 20 vs “3-in-1” block = 20 vs control = 20 30 mL 0.25% bupivacaine VAS, opioid consumption, adverse effects, and cortisol and ACTH levels Both FICB and “3-in-1” block can bring superior analgesia and reduction in opioid consumption. The two blocks also showed a suppression of stress hormones Bang et al. 2016 [42 ] Korea FICB = 11 vs. Non-FICB = 11 40 mL 0.2% ropivacaine Postoperative VAS scores, opioid consumption, and adverse events The FICB had a significant opioid-sparing effect in the first 24 hours after hemiarthroplasty Mostafa et al. 2018 [43 ] Egypt FICA = 30 vs. IV fentanyl = 30 35 mL 0.125% levobupivacaine + PC-FICA Postoperative VAS scores, additional analgesia requirement, and total additional analgesia assumption PC-FICA provided a better quality of analgesia and decreased postoperative rescue analgesic requirement without increased side effects compared to PCA IV fentanyl Yamamoto et al. 2019 [44 ] Japan FICB = 25 vs IV acetaminophen = 28 40 mL 0.25% levobupivacaine VAS (rest/movement), total number of rescue analgesics required, incidence of delirium Patients treated with FICB received better pain control compared to IV NSAIDs without increasing the complication rate Thompson et al. 2020 [45 ] America FICB = 23 vs control = 24 30 mL 0.25% ropivacaine Pain medication consumption, functional recovery, patient satisfaction FICB significantly decreased postoperative consumption of morphine for breakthrough pain while increasing patient satisfaction Schulte et al. 2020 [46 ] USA FICB = 57 vs control = 40 45 to 60 mL 0.375% ropivacaine VAS, MME, postoperative ambulatory distance A single perioperative FIB for patients with hip fractures undergoing surgery may decrease opioid consumption and increase the likelihood that a patient is discharged home Diakomi et al. 2020 [47 ] Greece FICB = 91 vs sham FICB = 91 40 mL 0.5% ropivacaine Incidence, intensity, and severity of CPSP at 3 and 6 months after hip fracture surgery FICB in the perioperative setting may reduce the incidence, intensity, and severity of CPSP at 3 and 6 months after hip fracture surgery, providing safe and effective postoperative analgesia Other benefits of FICB Mouzopoulos et al. 2009 [48 ] Greece FICB = 102 vs placebo (water for injection) = 105 0.25 mg dose of 0.3 mL/kg bupivacaine Perioperative delirium, mean duration of delirium Severity and incidence of delirium were significantly lower in intermediate-risk patients treated with FICB, along with shorter mean duration of delirium Nie et al. 2015 [49 ] China CFICB = 51 vs PCIA (IV fentanyl) = 53 20–30 mL 0.5% ropivacaine, 0.1 mL/kg/h 0.25% ropivacaine continuously Postoperative pain and complications (delirium, nausea and vomiting, and pruritus) FICB showed a stronger effect on reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting, and pruritus, but with a higher incidence of developing delirium Hao et al. 2019 [50 ] China CFICB = 44 vs placebo (normal saline) = 46 30 mL 0.45% ropivacaine, 6 mL/h 0.25% ropivacaine continuously Postoperative delirium, change in preoperative and postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption The incidence of post-op delirium was lower for patients who received CFICB
