Retrospective Comparison of the Pericapsular Nerve Group Block Versus the Fascia Iliaca Block for Hip Fractures in the Emergency Department.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Theresa Kim, Vahe Martikian, Soheil Saadat, Michael Hetzel, Matthew Whited, Ami Kurzweil
{"title":"Retrospective Comparison of the Pericapsular Nerve Group Block Versus the Fascia Iliaca Block for Hip Fractures in the Emergency Department.","authors":"Theresa Kim, Vahe Martikian, Soheil Saadat, Michael Hetzel, Matthew Whited, Ami Kurzweil","doi":"10.5811/westjem.53940","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Hip fractures are a common injury among the elderly and a substantial cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Pain management is an essential component of care for patients with hip fractures, particularly for improving patient outcomes. Ultrasound-guided nerve blocks such as the fascia iliaca block (FIB) are evidence-based means of providing perioperative analgesia and reducing opioid use. Newer nerve blocks, such as the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block, may serve as alternatives to the FIB. The objective of this study was to retrospectively compare pain reduction following the PENG block and FIB in patients with hip fractures treated in our emergency department. Secondary objectives included block-related complications such as local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST), greater hospital length of stay, and increase in mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The primary outcome measure was to investigate whether the PENG block is an effective alternative to FIB in achieving analgesia. Secondary objectives include data on rates of LAST, block complications, hospital length of stay, and mortality. We conducted a retrospective chart review on adult patients (≥18 years) with hip fractures who received either a FIB or PENG block between June 2021 and June 2023. Among the participants, pain scores (0-10 scale) were recorded before and after the block. Opioid use 24 hours postblock was also documented. We used generalized estimating equation modeling to compare pre-to-post block pain reduction between the FIB and PENG block groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 88 participants met inclusion criteria (73 FIB, 15 PENG). The mean (SD) preblock pain scores were 6.5 (2.1) for FIB and 7.9 (1.6) for PENG, improving to 4.4 (2.0) and 4.3 (2.1) postblock, respectively. Generalized estimating equation analysis revealed a statistically significant greater reduction in pain for the PENG group compared to FIB (mean difference = 1.42; 95% CI, 0.21-2.63; P = .02). In this study, there were no cases of local anesthetic systemic toxicity or other block-related complications observed (0%; 95% CI, 0%-3.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients who received the PENG block achieved a greater reduction in pain scores compared to the FIB in this small retrospective cohort study. These findings suggest that the PENG block may be an effective alternative to FIB for analgesia in this setting. However, larger, prospective studies are needed to confirm these results. Given the study design and baseline differences in pain scores, these findings should be interpreted with caution.</p>","PeriodicalId":23682,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"27 5","pages":"1485-1489"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13660564/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.53940","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Hip fractures are a common injury among the elderly and a substantial cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Pain management is an essential component of care for patients with hip fractures, particularly for improving patient outcomes. Ultrasound-guided nerve blocks such as the fascia iliaca block (FIB) are evidence-based means of providing perioperative analgesia and reducing opioid use. Newer nerve blocks, such as the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block, may serve as alternatives to the FIB. The objective of this study was to retrospectively compare pain reduction following the PENG block and FIB in patients with hip fractures treated in our emergency department. Secondary objectives included block-related complications such as local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST), greater hospital length of stay, and increase in mortality.

Methods: The primary outcome measure was to investigate whether the PENG block is an effective alternative to FIB in achieving analgesia. Secondary objectives include data on rates of LAST, block complications, hospital length of stay, and mortality. We conducted a retrospective chart review on adult patients (≥18 years) with hip fractures who received either a FIB or PENG block between June 2021 and June 2023. Among the participants, pain scores (0-10 scale) were recorded before and after the block. Opioid use 24 hours postblock was also documented. We used generalized estimating equation modeling to compare pre-to-post block pain reduction between the FIB and PENG block groups.

Results: A total of 88 participants met inclusion criteria (73 FIB, 15 PENG). The mean (SD) preblock pain scores were 6.5 (2.1) for FIB and 7.9 (1.6) for PENG, improving to 4.4 (2.0) and 4.3 (2.1) postblock, respectively. Generalized estimating equation analysis revealed a statistically significant greater reduction in pain for the PENG group compared to FIB (mean difference = 1.42; 95% CI, 0.21-2.63; P = .02). In this study, there were no cases of local anesthetic systemic toxicity or other block-related complications observed (0%; 95% CI, 0%-3.4%).

Conclusion: Patients who received the PENG block achieved a greater reduction in pain scores compared to the FIB in this small retrospective cohort study. These findings suggest that the PENG block may be an effective alternative to FIB for analgesia in this setting. However, larger, prospective studies are needed to confirm these results. Given the study design and baseline differences in pain scores, these findings should be interpreted with caution.

急诊科髋部骨折囊包神经群阻滞与髂筋膜阻滞的回顾性比较
髋部骨折是老年人中常见的损伤,也是世界范围内发病率和死亡率的重要原因。疼痛管理是髋部骨折患者护理的重要组成部分,特别是改善患者的预后。超声引导神经阻滞,如髂筋膜阻滞(FIB)是提供围手术期镇痛和减少阿片类药物使用的循证手段。较新的神经阻滞,如囊包神经组(PENG)阻滞,可作为FIB的替代方法。本研究的目的是回顾性比较在我们急诊科治疗的髋部骨折患者在PENG阻滞和FIB后疼痛减轻的情况。次要目标包括阻滞相关并发症,如局麻全身毒性(LAST)、住院时间延长和死亡率增加。方法:主要结局指标是研究PENG阻滞是否能有效替代FIB达到镇痛效果。次要目标包括LAST、阻滞并发症、住院时间和死亡率的数据。我们对2021年6月至2023年6月期间接受FIB或PENG阻滞的成年髋部骨折患者(≥18岁)进行了回顾性图表回顾。在阻滞前后分别记录受试者的疼痛评分(0-10分)。阻断后24小时阿片类药物使用也有记录。我们使用广义估计方程模型来比较FIB组和PENG组之间阻滞前后疼痛减轻的情况。结果:共有88名参与者符合纳入标准(73名FIB, 15名PENG)。阻滞前FIB的平均(SD)疼痛评分为6.5 (2.1),PENG的平均(SD)疼痛评分为7.9(1.6),阻滞后分别提高到4.4(2.0)和4.3(2.1)。广义估计方程分析显示,与FIB相比,PENG组疼痛的减轻具有统计学意义(平均差异= 1.42;95% CI, 0.21-2.63; P = 0.02)。在本研究中,没有观察到局麻全身毒性或其他阻滞相关并发症(0%;95% CI, 0%-3.4%)。结论:在这项小型回顾性队列研究中,与FIB相比,接受PENG阻滞的患者疼痛评分降低幅度更大。这些发现表明,在这种情况下,PENG阻滞可能是FIB镇痛的有效替代方法。然而,需要更大规模的前瞻性研究来证实这些结果。考虑到研究设计和疼痛评分的基线差异,这些发现应谨慎解释。
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
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
125
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: WestJEM focuses on how the systems and delivery of emergency care affects health, health disparities, and health outcomes in communities and populations worldwide, including the impact of social conditions on the composition of patients seeking care in emergency departments.
×
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