Yusuf Özgüner, Savaş Altinsoy, Gökçen Kültüroğlu, Sevda Gökçe Gürpinar, Derya Özkan, Jülide Ergil, Erbil Aydin
{"title":"Different local anesthetic volumes in pericapsular nerve group block for hip fracture patients.","authors":"Yusuf Özgüner, Savaş Altinsoy, Gökçen Kültüroğlu, Sevda Gökçe Gürpinar, Derya Özkan, Jülide Ergil, Erbil Aydin","doi":"10.55730/1300-0144.6038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aim: </strong>The pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is an effective method for pain management in patients with hip fractures. In our study, we compared three different local anesthetic volumes of the PENG block in patients who underwent surgery for hip fracture.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients who underwent surgery with spinal anesthesia for intertrochanteric femur fractures (60 patients) were divided into three groups based on the volume of local anesthetic administered: Group 1 (20 mL), Group 2 (30 mL), and Group 3 (40 mL). Postoperative patient-controlled analgesia was initiated. Postoperative tramadol consumption, rest and movement pain scores, and the duration of motor block were monitored.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that Group 2 (118 ± 35.48 mg) and Group 3 (115 ± 42.98 mg) had reduced tramadol consumption compared to Group 1 (151 ± 31.43 mg) (p < 0.05). However, Group 3 (161 ± 18.6 min) had a longer duration of motor block (time to reach a Bromage score of 0) compared to Group 1 (132.25 ± 13.71 min) and Group 2 (143.5 ± 19.54 min) (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found that the 30 mL and 40 mL volumes in the PENG block resulted in lower tramadol consumption compared to the 20 mL volume. We believe that the 30 mL volume is the most appropriate option among the three volumes, as it provides similar analgesic efficacy to the 40 mL volume but causes less motor block.</p>","PeriodicalId":23361,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences","volume":"55 4","pages":"860-867"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12419048/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55730/1300-0144.6038","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background/aim: The pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is an effective method for pain management in patients with hip fractures. In our study, we compared three different local anesthetic volumes of the PENG block in patients who underwent surgery for hip fracture.
Materials and methods: Patients who underwent surgery with spinal anesthesia for intertrochanteric femur fractures (60 patients) were divided into three groups based on the volume of local anesthetic administered: Group 1 (20 mL), Group 2 (30 mL), and Group 3 (40 mL). Postoperative patient-controlled analgesia was initiated. Postoperative tramadol consumption, rest and movement pain scores, and the duration of motor block were monitored.
Results: We found that Group 2 (118 ± 35.48 mg) and Group 3 (115 ± 42.98 mg) had reduced tramadol consumption compared to Group 1 (151 ± 31.43 mg) (p < 0.05). However, Group 3 (161 ± 18.6 min) had a longer duration of motor block (time to reach a Bromage score of 0) compared to Group 1 (132.25 ± 13.71 min) and Group 2 (143.5 ± 19.54 min) (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: We found that the 30 mL and 40 mL volumes in the PENG block resulted in lower tramadol consumption compared to the 20 mL volume. We believe that the 30 mL volume is the most appropriate option among the three volumes, as it provides similar analgesic efficacy to the 40 mL volume but causes less motor block.
期刊介绍:
Turkish Journal of Medical sciences is a peer-reviewed comprehensive resource that provides critical up-to-date information on the broad spectrum of general medical sciences. The Journal intended to publish original medical scientific papers regarding the priority based on the prominence, significance, and timeliness of the findings. However since the audience of the Journal is not limited to any subspeciality in a wide variety of medical disciplines, the papers focusing on the technical details of a given medical subspeciality may not be evaluated for publication.