Comparison of efficacy of fascia iliaca compartment block using ropivacaine versus ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine versus ropivacaine with dexamethasone for acute pain relief in patients with femoral fractures: A prospective randomized controlled study

K. Arora, Ritu Pauranik, Minanshu Mittal
{"title":"Comparison of efficacy of fascia iliaca compartment block using ropivacaine versus ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine versus ropivacaine with dexamethasone for acute pain relief in patients with femoral fractures: A prospective randomized controlled study","authors":"K. Arora, Ritu Pauranik, Minanshu Mittal","doi":"10.4103/ijpn.ijpn_32_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Landmark-guided fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) has been used in operation theater to facilitate patient position before administration of subarachnoid block, but its utilization is yet to be explored in the accident and emergency department for acute pain relief in patients with femoral fractures. Aims: The study aims to compare dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone as adjuvants to ropivacaine for FICB for onset and duration of analgesia. Settings and Designs: This was a prospective randomized controlled study performed in Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Indore. Subjects and Methods: Ninety patients with femoral factures were allocated into three groups, and each group received 15 ml of study drug; (i) ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine (RD) group (0.2% ropivacaine with 50 μg dexmedetomidine), (ii) ropivacaine with dexamethasone (RM) group (0.2% ropivacaine with 4 mg dexamethasone), and (iii) ropivacaine alone (RP) group (0.2% ropivacaine). Patients were assessed for onset, duration of analgesia, and need for rescue analgesic. Severity of pain was assessed using Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) score. Statistical Analysis Used: Comparison of means of three groups was done using One-Way ANOVA and pair-wise comparisons using post hoc Tukey's test. Results: The onset of analgesia was earlier in Group RD at 4.38 min followed by Group RM at 4.45 min and Group RP at 7.86 min, whereas the duration of analgesia was longer in Group RD at 725 min followed by Group RM at 594 min and Group RP at 275 min. NRS Score was comparable before application of FICB. After the block, the mean NRS score in Group RD was 3.83, in Group RM was 5.30, and in Group RP was 7.93. Conclusions: FICB is an effective alternative to intravenous opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute pain relief in patients with femoral fractures, and dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone can be used as adjuvants to ropivacaine as they both enhance quality of block.","PeriodicalId":32328,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Pain","volume":"36 1","pages":"135 - 139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijpn.ijpn_32_22","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

Context: Landmark-guided fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) has been used in operation theater to facilitate patient position before administration of subarachnoid block, but its utilization is yet to be explored in the accident and emergency department for acute pain relief in patients with femoral fractures. Aims: The study aims to compare dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone as adjuvants to ropivacaine for FICB for onset and duration of analgesia. Settings and Designs: This was a prospective randomized controlled study performed in Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Indore. Subjects and Methods: Ninety patients with femoral factures were allocated into three groups, and each group received 15 ml of study drug; (i) ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine (RD) group (0.2% ropivacaine with 50 μg dexmedetomidine), (ii) ropivacaine with dexamethasone (RM) group (0.2% ropivacaine with 4 mg dexamethasone), and (iii) ropivacaine alone (RP) group (0.2% ropivacaine). Patients were assessed for onset, duration of analgesia, and need for rescue analgesic. Severity of pain was assessed using Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) score. Statistical Analysis Used: Comparison of means of three groups was done using One-Way ANOVA and pair-wise comparisons using post hoc Tukey's test. Results: The onset of analgesia was earlier in Group RD at 4.38 min followed by Group RM at 4.45 min and Group RP at 7.86 min, whereas the duration of analgesia was longer in Group RD at 725 min followed by Group RM at 594 min and Group RP at 275 min. NRS Score was comparable before application of FICB. After the block, the mean NRS score in Group RD was 3.83, in Group RM was 5.30, and in Group RP was 7.93. Conclusions: FICB is an effective alternative to intravenous opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute pain relief in patients with femoral fractures, and dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone can be used as adjuvants to ropivacaine as they both enhance quality of block.
一项前瞻性随机对照研究:罗哌卡因与罗哌卡因联合右美托咪定、罗哌卡因联合地塞米松联合髂筋膜间室阻滞治疗股骨骨折急性疼痛的疗效比较
背景:Landmark引导髂筋膜间隔阻滞(FICB)已在手术室用于蛛网膜下腔阻滞给药前方便患者定位,但其在急诊科用于股骨骨折患者急性疼痛缓解的应用尚待探索。目的:本研究旨在比较右美托咪定和地塞米松作为罗哌卡因辅助FICB的镇痛起效和持续时间。设置和设计:这是一项在印多尔圣雄甘地纪念医学院进行的前瞻性随机对照研究。受试者和方法:将90例股骨骨折患者分为三组,每组接受15ml研究药物;(i) 罗哌卡因联合右美托咪定(RD)组(0.2%罗哌卡因加50μg右美托咪定),(ii)罗哌卡因+地塞米松(RM)组(0.2%罗哌卡因加4 mg地塞米松),和(iii)单独罗哌卡因(RP)组(0.2%罗哌卡因)。评估患者的起效时间、镇痛持续时间和抢救性镇痛的需要。使用数值评定量表(NRS)评分评估疼痛的严重程度。使用的统计分析:使用单向方差分析对三组的平均值进行比较,并使用事后Tukey检验进行配对比较。结果:RD组在4.38分钟开始镇痛较早,RM组在4.45分钟开始镇痛,RP组在7.86分钟开始镇痛。而RD组在725分钟开始镇痛较长,RM组为594分钟,RP组为275分钟。在应用FICB之前,NRS评分可比。阻断后,RD组的平均NRS得分为3.83,RM组为5.30,RP组为7.93。结论:FICB是静脉注射阿片类和非甾体抗炎药缓解股骨骨折患者急性疼痛的有效替代品,右美托咪定和地塞米松可作为罗哌卡因的佐剂,因为它们都能提高阻滞质量。
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
29
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信