Comparison of hematoma block and dexmedetomidine for reduction of distal radius fractures in the emergency department: a prospective randomized controlled study.

IF 1
Emin Fatih Vişneci, Demet Acar, Ebubekir Eravşar, Betül Kozanhan, Osman Lütfi Demirci, Mehmet Gül
{"title":"Comparison of hematoma block and dexmedetomidine for reduction of distal radius fractures in the emergency department: a prospective randomized controlled study.","authors":"Emin Fatih Vişneci, Demet Acar, Ebubekir Eravşar, Betül Kozanhan, Osman Lütfi Demirci, Mehmet Gül","doi":"10.14744/tjtes.2025.80876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to compare the effects of hematoma block (HB) and dexmedetomidine administration on pain control, reduction quality, and physician satisfaction during the reduction of distal radius fractures (DRFs) in the emergency department (ED).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 60 patients presenting to the ED with DRFs were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: one received HB, while the other underwent conscious sedation with dexmedetomidine. Pain levels were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at three time points: before the procedure, 10 minutes after administration of the intervention, and post-reduction. Physician satisfaction during reduction was measured using the 5-point Likert Satisfaction Scale (LSS). Post-reduction quality was evaluated on control radiographs using the Sarmiento criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the patients included in the study, 28 were female, 19 were male, and 13 were children (<12 years). The mean age was 32.97+-20.48 years in the dexmedetomidine group (DG) and 35.25+-18.92 years in the hematoma block group (HBG), with no statistically significant difference between the groups (t=-0.448, p=0.65). There was no significant difference in physician satisfaction during reduction between the two groups according to LSS results (χ²=2.296, p=0.512). Pre-procedure VAS scores were comparable between the two groups (t=-0.148, p=0.883). However, VAS scores 10 minutes after the intervention were significantly lower in the DG compared to the HBG (p=0.009, t=-2.773). Post-reduction quality based on the Sarmiento criteria showed no significant difference between the groups (χ²=0.64, p=0.89). No adverse effects related to either method were observed in any of the patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Dexmedetomidine provides faster and more effective pain management than HB for DRF reduction in the ED. Given its minimal systemic side effects, dexmedetomidine may represent a viable alternative for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in fracture reductions requiring sedation in the ED.</p>","PeriodicalId":94263,"journal":{"name":"Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES","volume":"31 9","pages":"913-919"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12460639/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14744/tjtes.2025.80876","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: This study aimed to compare the effects of hematoma block (HB) and dexmedetomidine administration on pain control, reduction quality, and physician satisfaction during the reduction of distal radius fractures (DRFs) in the emergency department (ED).

Methods: A total of 60 patients presenting to the ED with DRFs were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: one received HB, while the other underwent conscious sedation with dexmedetomidine. Pain levels were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at three time points: before the procedure, 10 minutes after administration of the intervention, and post-reduction. Physician satisfaction during reduction was measured using the 5-point Likert Satisfaction Scale (LSS). Post-reduction quality was evaluated on control radiographs using the Sarmiento criteria.

Results: Among the patients included in the study, 28 were female, 19 were male, and 13 were children (<12 years). The mean age was 32.97+-20.48 years in the dexmedetomidine group (DG) and 35.25+-18.92 years in the hematoma block group (HBG), with no statistically significant difference between the groups (t=-0.448, p=0.65). There was no significant difference in physician satisfaction during reduction between the two groups according to LSS results (χ²=2.296, p=0.512). Pre-procedure VAS scores were comparable between the two groups (t=-0.148, p=0.883). However, VAS scores 10 minutes after the intervention were significantly lower in the DG compared to the HBG (p=0.009, t=-2.773). Post-reduction quality based on the Sarmiento criteria showed no significant difference between the groups (χ²=0.64, p=0.89). No adverse effects related to either method were observed in any of the patients.

Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine provides faster and more effective pain management than HB for DRF reduction in the ED. Given its minimal systemic side effects, dexmedetomidine may represent a viable alternative for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in fracture reductions requiring sedation in the ED.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

血肿阻滞和右美托咪定在急诊科桡骨远端骨折复位中的比较:一项前瞻性随机对照研究。
背景:本研究旨在比较血肿阻滞(HB)和右美托咪定在急诊科(ED)桡骨远端骨折(DRFs)复位过程中对疼痛控制、复位质量和医生满意度的影响。方法:共有60例出现DRFs的患者入组。患者被随机分为两组:一组接受HB治疗,另一组接受右美托咪定清醒镇静治疗。使用视觉模拟评分(VAS)在三个时间点评估疼痛水平:手术前、干预后10分钟和复位后。采用5点李克特满意度量表(LSS)测量复位过程中医生的满意度。采用sammiento标准对对照x线片进行复位后质量评价。结果:在纳入研究的患者中,28名女性,19名男性,13名儿童(结论:右美托咪定在ED中提供了比HB更快和更有效的疼痛管理,以减少DRF。鉴于其最小的全身副作用,右美托咪定可能是ED中需要镇静的骨折复位手术镇静和镇痛(PSA)的可行替代方案。
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
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