Comparative Efficacy of Hematoma Block Versus Circumferential Block in Pain Management for Distal Radius Fracture Reduction.

IF 1.5 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Natee Kalapukdee, Patarapon Inthawong, Jaruwat Vechasilp, Lertkong Nitiwarangkul, Woraphon Jaroenporn
{"title":"Comparative Efficacy of Hematoma Block Versus Circumferential Block in Pain Management for Distal Radius Fracture Reduction.","authors":"Natee Kalapukdee, Patarapon Inthawong, Jaruwat Vechasilp, Lertkong Nitiwarangkul, Woraphon Jaroenporn","doi":"10.1007/s00590-026-04733-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Distal radius fractures are among the most common orthopedic injuries requiring effective pain management during closed reduction. While the hematoma block is widely used, circumferential block has been proposed as an alternative due to its broader analgesic coverage. However, direct comparative evidence remains limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 51 patients with distal radius fractures treated from June 2023 to May 2024. Patients were randomized into hematoma block or circumferential block groups. Pain levels were measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at four time points: before injection, 5 min post-injection, during reduction, and 10 min post-reduction. Radiographic alignment and complications were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups (p = 0.42). Pain scores were significantly lower in the circumferential block group across all post-injection time points (p < 0.01). VAS scores: Circumferential block provided better pain relief at 5 min post-injection (1.19 vs. 3.08), during reduction (1.61 vs. 4.96), and 10 min post-reduction (1.50 vs. 4.12). Radiographic alignment outcomes were similar between groups. No adverse events (e.g., neurovascular injury, infection) were reported.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Circumferential block demonstrated superior pain control compared to hematoma block without compromising fracture alignment or increasing complications. Its broader periosteal innervation coverage and ease of administration suggest it may be a valuable alternative for pain management in distal radius fracture reduction. However, further studies with larger sample sizes and long-term functional assessments are warranted to confirm these findings.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence i: </strong>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .</p>","PeriodicalId":50484,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-026-04733-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Distal radius fractures are among the most common orthopedic injuries requiring effective pain management during closed reduction. While the hematoma block is widely used, circumferential block has been proposed as an alternative due to its broader analgesic coverage. However, direct comparative evidence remains limited.

Methods: This double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 51 patients with distal radius fractures treated from June 2023 to May 2024. Patients were randomized into hematoma block or circumferential block groups. Pain levels were measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at four time points: before injection, 5 min post-injection, during reduction, and 10 min post-reduction. Radiographic alignment and complications were also assessed.

Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups (p = 0.42). Pain scores were significantly lower in the circumferential block group across all post-injection time points (p < 0.01). VAS scores: Circumferential block provided better pain relief at 5 min post-injection (1.19 vs. 3.08), during reduction (1.61 vs. 4.96), and 10 min post-reduction (1.50 vs. 4.12). Radiographic alignment outcomes were similar between groups. No adverse events (e.g., neurovascular injury, infection) were reported.

Conclusions: Circumferential block demonstrated superior pain control compared to hematoma block without compromising fracture alignment or increasing complications. Its broader periosteal innervation coverage and ease of administration suggest it may be a valuable alternative for pain management in distal radius fracture reduction. However, further studies with larger sample sizes and long-term functional assessments are warranted to confirm these findings.

Level of evidence i: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

血肿阻滞与环形阻滞在桡骨远端骨折复位疼痛管理中的比较疗效。
背景:桡骨远端骨折是最常见的骨科损伤之一,在闭合复位中需要有效的疼痛管理。虽然血肿阻滞被广泛使用,但由于其更广泛的镇痛覆盖,已被建议作为一种替代方法。然而,直接的比较证据仍然有限。方法:本双盲随机对照试验(RCT)纳入51例桡骨远端骨折患者,治疗时间为2023年6月至2024年5月。患者被随机分为血肿阻断组和周阻断组。采用视觉模拟评分(VAS)在注射前、注射后5分钟、复位时和复位后10分钟四个时间点测量疼痛水平。同时还评估了x线对准和并发症。结果:两组间基线特征具有可比性(p = 0.42)。结论:与血肿阻滞相比,环周阻滞对疼痛的控制优于血肿阻滞,且不影响骨折对齐或增加并发症。其更广泛的骨膜神经覆盖范围和易于给药表明它可能是桡骨远端骨折复位疼痛管理的有价值的替代方法。然而,需要更大样本量的进一步研究和长期功能评估来证实这些发现。证据等级i:本刊要求作者为每篇文章指定证据等级。有关这些循证医学评级的完整描述,请参阅目录或在线作者说明www.springer.com/00266。
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
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
265
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology (EJOST) aims to publish high quality Orthopedic scientific work. The objective of our journal is to disseminate meaningful, impactful, clinically relevant work from each and every region of the world, that has the potential to change and or inform clinical practice.
×
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
小红书