血肿阻滞是前臂骨折闭合复位最有效的技术:一项回顾性队列研究。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Georgia Rose Pitman, Torgrim Soeyland, Gordana Popovic, David Thomson
{"title":"血肿阻滞是前臂骨折闭合复位最有效的技术:一项回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Georgia Rose Pitman, Torgrim Soeyland, Gordana Popovic, David Thomson","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2023-213591","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Forearm fractures are a common ED presentation. This study aimed to compare the resource utilisation of three anaesthetic techniques used for closed forearm fracture reduction in the ED: haematoma block (HB), Bier's block (BB) and procedural sedation (PS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective multicentre cohort study was conducted of adult patients presenting to either Port Macquarie Base Hospital ED or Kempsey District Hospital ED in New South Wales, Australia, from January 2018 to June 2021. Patients requiring a closed reduction in the ED were included. ED length of stay (LOS) was compared using a likelihood ratio test. Successful reduction on the first attempt and the number of ED specialists present for each method were both modelled with a linear regression. Staff utilisation by the level of training, cost of consumables and complications for each group were presented as descriptive statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 226 forearm fractures were included. 84 used HB, 35 BB and 107 PS. The mean ED LOS was lowest for HB (187.7 min) compared with BB (227.2 min) and PS (239.3 min) (p=0.023). The number of ED specialists required for PS was higher when compared with HB and BB (p=0.001). The cost of consumables and a total number of staff were considerably lower for HB compared with PS and BB methods. PS had the highest proportion of successful reductions on the first attempt (94.4%) compared with BB (88.6%) and HB (76.2%) (p=0.006). More patients experienced complications from PS (17.8%) compared with BB (14.3%) and HB (13.1%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, the HB method was the most efficient as it was associated with a shorter ED LOS, lower cost and staff resource utilisation. Although PS had a significantly greater proportion of successful reductions on the first attempt, HB had fewer complications than BB and PS. EDs with limited resources should consider using HB or BB as the initial technique for fracture reduction with PS used for failed HB or when regional blocks are contraindicated.</p>","PeriodicalId":11532,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"595-601"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Haematoma block is the most efficient technique for closed forearm fracture reduction: a retrospective cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Georgia Rose Pitman, Torgrim Soeyland, Gordana Popovic, David Thomson\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/emermed-2023-213591\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Forearm fractures are a common ED presentation. This study aimed to compare the resource utilisation of three anaesthetic techniques used for closed forearm fracture reduction in the ED: haematoma block (HB), Bier's block (BB) and procedural sedation (PS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective multicentre cohort study was conducted of adult patients presenting to either Port Macquarie Base Hospital ED or Kempsey District Hospital ED in New South Wales, Australia, from January 2018 to June 2021. Patients requiring a closed reduction in the ED were included. ED length of stay (LOS) was compared using a likelihood ratio test. Successful reduction on the first attempt and the number of ED specialists present for each method were both modelled with a linear regression. Staff utilisation by the level of training, cost of consumables and complications for each group were presented as descriptive statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 226 forearm fractures were included. 84 used HB, 35 BB and 107 PS. The mean ED LOS was lowest for HB (187.7 min) compared with BB (227.2 min) and PS (239.3 min) (p=0.023). The number of ED specialists required for PS was higher when compared with HB and BB (p=0.001). The cost of consumables and a total number of staff were considerably lower for HB compared with PS and BB methods. PS had the highest proportion of successful reductions on the first attempt (94.4%) compared with BB (88.6%) and HB (76.2%) (p=0.006). More patients experienced complications from PS (17.8%) compared with BB (14.3%) and HB (13.1%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, the HB method was the most efficient as it was associated with a shorter ED LOS, lower cost and staff resource utilisation. Although PS had a significantly greater proportion of successful reductions on the first attempt, HB had fewer complications than BB and PS. EDs with limited resources should consider using HB or BB as the initial technique for fracture reduction with PS used for failed HB or when regional blocks are contraindicated.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergency Medicine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"595-601\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergency Medicine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2023-213591\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2023-213591","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:前臂骨折是急诊科的常见病。本研究旨在比较急诊室用于前臂骨折闭合复位的三种麻醉技术的资源利用情况:血肿阻滞(HB)、比尔阻滞(BB)和程序性镇静(PS):方法:对2018年1月至2021年6月期间前往澳大利亚新南威尔士州麦夸里港基地医院急诊室或肯普西地区医院急诊室就诊的成年患者进行了一项回顾性多中心队列研究。研究纳入了需要在急诊室进行闭合缩窄术的患者。使用似然比检验比较了急诊室的住院时间(LOS)。采用线性回归法对首次尝试的成功率和每种方法的急诊室专家人数进行建模。每组的培训水平、耗材成本和并发症等方面的人员使用情况均以描述性统计数据的形式呈现:共纳入 226 例前臂骨折。其中 84 例使用 HB,35 例使用 BB,107 例使用 PS。与 BB(227.2 分钟)和 PS(239.3 分钟)相比,HB 的平均 ED LOS 最低(187.7 分钟)(p=0.023)。与 HB 和 BB 相比,PS 所需的急诊科专家人数更多(p=0.001)。与 PS 和 BB 方法相比,HB 的耗材成本和员工总数要低得多。与 BB(88.6%)和 HB(76.2%)相比,PS 首次成功减瘤的比例最高(94.4%)(p=0.006)。与 BB(14.3%)和 HB(13.1%)相比,PS(17.8%)法出现并发症的患者更多:在这项研究中,HB方法是最有效的方法,因为它缩短了急诊室的住院时间,降低了成本和人力资源利用率。虽然 PS 首次成功减瘤的比例明显更高,但与 BB 和 PS 相比,HB 的并发症更少。资源有限的急诊室应考虑使用HB或BB作为骨折复位的初始技术,HB失败或区域阻滞禁忌时则使用PS。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Haematoma block is the most efficient technique for closed forearm fracture reduction: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: Forearm fractures are a common ED presentation. This study aimed to compare the resource utilisation of three anaesthetic techniques used for closed forearm fracture reduction in the ED: haematoma block (HB), Bier's block (BB) and procedural sedation (PS).

Methods: A retrospective multicentre cohort study was conducted of adult patients presenting to either Port Macquarie Base Hospital ED or Kempsey District Hospital ED in New South Wales, Australia, from January 2018 to June 2021. Patients requiring a closed reduction in the ED were included. ED length of stay (LOS) was compared using a likelihood ratio test. Successful reduction on the first attempt and the number of ED specialists present for each method were both modelled with a linear regression. Staff utilisation by the level of training, cost of consumables and complications for each group were presented as descriptive statistics.

Results: A total of 226 forearm fractures were included. 84 used HB, 35 BB and 107 PS. The mean ED LOS was lowest for HB (187.7 min) compared with BB (227.2 min) and PS (239.3 min) (p=0.023). The number of ED specialists required for PS was higher when compared with HB and BB (p=0.001). The cost of consumables and a total number of staff were considerably lower for HB compared with PS and BB methods. PS had the highest proportion of successful reductions on the first attempt (94.4%) compared with BB (88.6%) and HB (76.2%) (p=0.006). More patients experienced complications from PS (17.8%) compared with BB (14.3%) and HB (13.1%).

Conclusions: In this study, the HB method was the most efficient as it was associated with a shorter ED LOS, lower cost and staff resource utilisation. Although PS had a significantly greater proportion of successful reductions on the first attempt, HB had fewer complications than BB and PS. EDs with limited resources should consider using HB or BB as the initial technique for fracture reduction with PS used for failed HB or when regional blocks are contraindicated.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Emergency Medicine Journal
Emergency Medicine Journal 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
6.50%
发文量
262
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Emergency Medicine Journal is a leading international journal reporting developments and advances in emergency medicine and acute care. It has relevance to all specialties involved in the management of emergencies in the hospital and prehospital environment. Each issue contains editorials, reviews, original research, evidence based reviews, letters and more.
×
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