PENG block in elderly patients with hip fracture: less is more? A prospective observational monocentric study.

Valerio Donatiello, Aniello Alfieri, Maria Civita Mazza, Pietro Buonavolontà, Antonio Scalvenzi, Elena Prisco, Vincenzo Maffei, Cono Alberto Lanza, Francesco Coppolino, Maria Caterina Pace, Pasquale Sansone, Maria Beatrice Passavanti
{"title":"PENG block in elderly patients with hip fracture: less is more? A prospective observational monocentric study.","authors":"Valerio Donatiello, Aniello Alfieri, Maria Civita Mazza, Pietro Buonavolontà, Antonio Scalvenzi, Elena Prisco, Vincenzo Maffei, Cono Alberto Lanza, Francesco Coppolino, Maria Caterina Pace, Pasquale Sansone, Maria Beatrice Passavanti","doi":"10.1186/s44158-025-00265-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Proximal femur fractures in the elderly are a common and serious condition with high morbidity and mortality. Effective postoperative pain control reduces complications, hospital stay, and opioid use. The PEricapsular Nerve Group (PENG) block is a regional anesthesia technique offering motor-sparing analgesia, facilitating spinal anesthesia and early rehabilitation. However, higher local anesthetic (LA) doses may increase the risk of systemic toxicity, particularly in frail, sarcopenic patients. This study evaluates the analgesic efficacy and safety of two ropivacaine concentrations (0.375% vs 0.25%) in PENG blocks.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective observational monocentric study included 217 patients (aged 65-100) undergoing surgery for osteoporotic proximal femur fractures. Patients received a 20-mL PENG block with either 0.375% or 0.25% ropivacaine prior to spinal anesthesia. Postoperative analgesia included paracetamol and ketorolac, with intramuscular morphine available as rescue. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients requiring morphine; secondary outcomes included time to first rescue dose. Statistical analyses included chi-square testing, Kaplan-Meier estimates, and non-inferiority analysis (Δ = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The proportion of patients requiring rescue morphine was 23% in the 0.375% group and 25% in the 0.25% group (p = 0.87). Non-inferiority was demonstrated, with a difference of - 0.019 (95% CI: - 0.0344 to - 0.0036). No significant differences were observed in time to first rescue dose.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PENG block with 0.25% ropivacaine provides non-inferior analgesia compared to 0.375%, supporting its use in elderly patients to reduce opioid reliance and minimize the risk of local anesthetic systemic toxicity.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":73597,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","volume":"5 1","pages":"46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12275268/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44158-025-00265-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Proximal femur fractures in the elderly are a common and serious condition with high morbidity and mortality. Effective postoperative pain control reduces complications, hospital stay, and opioid use. The PEricapsular Nerve Group (PENG) block is a regional anesthesia technique offering motor-sparing analgesia, facilitating spinal anesthesia and early rehabilitation. However, higher local anesthetic (LA) doses may increase the risk of systemic toxicity, particularly in frail, sarcopenic patients. This study evaluates the analgesic efficacy and safety of two ropivacaine concentrations (0.375% vs 0.25%) in PENG blocks.

Methods: This prospective observational monocentric study included 217 patients (aged 65-100) undergoing surgery for osteoporotic proximal femur fractures. Patients received a 20-mL PENG block with either 0.375% or 0.25% ropivacaine prior to spinal anesthesia. Postoperative analgesia included paracetamol and ketorolac, with intramuscular morphine available as rescue. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients requiring morphine; secondary outcomes included time to first rescue dose. Statistical analyses included chi-square testing, Kaplan-Meier estimates, and non-inferiority analysis (Δ = 0.05).

Results: The proportion of patients requiring rescue morphine was 23% in the 0.375% group and 25% in the 0.25% group (p = 0.87). Non-inferiority was demonstrated, with a difference of - 0.019 (95% CI: - 0.0344 to - 0.0036). No significant differences were observed in time to first rescue dose.

Conclusion: PENG block with 0.25% ropivacaine provides non-inferior analgesia compared to 0.375%, supporting its use in elderly patients to reduce opioid reliance and minimize the risk of local anesthetic systemic toxicity.

Trial registration: Not applicable.

彭阻滞治疗老年髋部骨折:少即是多?一项前瞻性单中心观察研究。
背景:老年人股骨近端骨折是一种常见且严重的疾病,发病率和死亡率都很高。有效的术后疼痛控制可减少并发症、住院时间和阿片类药物的使用。囊外神经阻滞是一种区域麻醉技术,提供运动保留镇痛,促进脊髓麻醉和早期康复。然而,较高的局部麻醉(LA)剂量可能会增加全身毒性的风险,特别是在虚弱的肌肉减少患者中。本研究评估了两种罗哌卡因浓度(0.375% vs 0.25%)在PENG阻滞中的镇痛效果和安全性。方法:本前瞻性单中心观察研究纳入217例(65-100岁)股骨近端骨质疏松性骨折手术患者。患者在脊髓麻醉前接受含0.375%或0.25%罗哌卡因的20ml PENG阻滞。术后镇痛包括扑热息痛、酮咯酸,肌注吗啡抢救。主要终点是需要吗啡的患者比例;次要结局包括到第一次抢救剂量的时间。统计分析包括卡方检验、Kaplan-Meier估计和非劣效性分析(Δ = 0.05)。结果:0.375%组和0.25%组患者需要吗啡救助的比例分别为23%和25% (p = 0.87)。非劣效性证明,差异为- 0.019 (95% CI: - 0.0344至- 0.0036)。与首次抢救剂量相比,时间上无显著差异。结论:与0.375%罗哌卡因相比,0.25%罗哌卡因的PENG阻滞可提供非亚效镇痛,支持其用于老年患者,以减少对阿片类药物的依赖,并最大限度地降低局麻全身毒性的风险。试验注册:不适用。
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
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信