Ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block versus fascia iliaca compartment block for femoral fractures in emergency department: A randomized controlled trial

IF 1.5 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Mohammad Rezaei Zadeh Rukerd, Lida Erfaniparsa, Mitra Movahedi, Hanieh Mirkamali, Seyed Danial Alizadeh, Mehran Ilaghi, Amirreza Sadeghifar, Saeed Barazandehpoor, Morteza Hashemian, Pouria Pourzand, Amirhossein Mirafzal
{"title":"Ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block versus fascia iliaca compartment block for femoral fractures in emergency department: A randomized controlled trial","authors":"Mohammad Rezaei Zadeh Rukerd,&nbsp;Lida Erfaniparsa,&nbsp;Mitra Movahedi,&nbsp;Hanieh Mirkamali,&nbsp;Seyed Danial Alizadeh,&nbsp;Mehran Ilaghi,&nbsp;Amirreza Sadeghifar,&nbsp;Saeed Barazandehpoor,&nbsp;Morteza Hashemian,&nbsp;Pouria Pourzand,&nbsp;Amirhossein Mirafzal","doi":"10.1002/ams2.936","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>Femoral fractures are one of the most debilitating injuries presenting to the emergency departments (EDs). The pain caused by these fractures is typically managed with opioids and adjunctive regional analgesia. These approaches are often associated with adverse side effects. Thus, appropriate alternative methods should be thoroughly investigated. To evaluate ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block (FNB) with ultrasound-guided fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) in femoral fractures, to determine which provides better analgesia and less opioid requirement.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This study was a randomized clinical trial performed on adult patients presenting to the ED within 3 h of isolated femoral fracture with initial numerical pain rating scale (NRS-0) score of more than 5. The patients were randomized to receive FNB or FICB. The outcomes were block success rates, pain at 20 (NRS-20) and 60 (NRS-60) min after the end of the procedures, as well as the number and total dose of fentanyl administration during ED stay.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Eighty-seven patients were recruited (40 FNB and 47 FICB). Success rates were 82.5% in FNB and 83.0% in FICB group, with no significant difference between the groups. NRS-20, NRS-60, the number of patients who received supplemental fentanyl, and the total dose of administered fentanyl were significantly lower following FNB. However, the length of the procedure was significantly lower in the FICB group.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Both FNB and FICB are effective in pain reduction for fractures of femur, but FNB provides more pain relief and less need for supplemental fentanyl.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":7196,"journal":{"name":"Acute Medicine & Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10916633/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acute Medicine & Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ams2.936","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

Femoral fractures are one of the most debilitating injuries presenting to the emergency departments (EDs). The pain caused by these fractures is typically managed with opioids and adjunctive regional analgesia. These approaches are often associated with adverse side effects. Thus, appropriate alternative methods should be thoroughly investigated. To evaluate ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block (FNB) with ultrasound-guided fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) in femoral fractures, to determine which provides better analgesia and less opioid requirement.

Methods

This study was a randomized clinical trial performed on adult patients presenting to the ED within 3 h of isolated femoral fracture with initial numerical pain rating scale (NRS-0) score of more than 5. The patients were randomized to receive FNB or FICB. The outcomes were block success rates, pain at 20 (NRS-20) and 60 (NRS-60) min after the end of the procedures, as well as the number and total dose of fentanyl administration during ED stay.

Results

Eighty-seven patients were recruited (40 FNB and 47 FICB). Success rates were 82.5% in FNB and 83.0% in FICB group, with no significant difference between the groups. NRS-20, NRS-60, the number of patients who received supplemental fentanyl, and the total dose of administered fentanyl were significantly lower following FNB. However, the length of the procedure was significantly lower in the FICB group.

Conclusion

Both FNB and FICB are effective in pain reduction for fractures of femur, but FNB provides more pain relief and less need for supplemental fentanyl.

Abstract Image

急诊科股骨骨折超声引导下股神经阻滞与髂筋膜室阻滞:随机对照试验。
目的:股骨骨折是急诊科(ED)最常见的致残性损伤之一。这些骨折引起的疼痛通常由阿片类药物和辅助性区域镇痛药控制。这些方法通常会产生不良副作用。因此,应彻底研究适当的替代方法。目的:评估超声引导下的股神经阻滞(FNB)和超声引导下的髂筋膜室阻滞(FICB)在股骨骨折中的应用,以确定哪种方法能提供更好的镇痛效果和更少的阿片类药物需求:本研究是一项随机临床试验,对象是在3小时内因孤立性股骨骨折到急诊室就诊、初始疼痛评分量表(NRS-0)评分超过5分的成年患者。患者被随机分配接受 FNB 或 FICB。结果包括阻滞成功率、手术结束后 20 分钟(NRS-20)和 60 分钟(NRS-60)的疼痛程度以及在急诊室住院期间使用芬太尼的次数和总剂量:共招募了 87 名患者(40 名 FNB 和 47 名 FICB)。FNB 组的成功率为 82.5%,FICB 组的成功率为 83.0%,两组间无显著差异。使用 FNB 后,NRS-20、NRS-60、接受芬太尼补充的患者人数和芬太尼总剂量均显著降低。但 FICB 组的手术时间明显更短:结论:FNB和FICB都能有效减轻股骨骨折患者的疼痛,但FNB能提供更多的疼痛缓解,且补充芬太尼的需求更少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acute Medicine & Surgery
Acute Medicine & Surgery MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
12.50%
发文量
87
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信