髂腹股沟上筋膜阻滞与囊周神经群 (PNEG) 阻滞治疗髋部骨折患者疼痛:双盲随机对比试验

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
{"title":"髂腹股沟上筋膜阻滞与囊周神经群 (PNEG) 阻滞治疗髋部骨折患者疼痛:双盲随机对比试验","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.injury.2024.111936","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Regional analgesia has been recommended to alleviate pain caused by hip fractures. Both the supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block (S-FIB) and the peri‑capsular nerve group (PENG) block provide better analgesia than conventional fascia iliaca block for patients with hip fractures, but which one is superior remains equivocal. This study aimed to determine the superiority of S-FIB or PENG block for patients awaiting hip surgery.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In this prospective, double-blind, randomised comparative trial, patients with hip fractures awaiting operation were randomly allocated to receive either S-FIB with 30 ml 0.35 % ropivacaine or PENG block with 20 ml 0.35 % ropivacaine. Primary outcomes were pain scores (numeric rating scale, NRS, 0–10) at rest and during passive movement 30 min after nerve block. Secondary outcomes included pain scores at rest and during movement 10 and 20 min after nerve block and during positioning for spinal anaesthesia, time spent for performing nerve block and spinal anaesthesia, and the quality of positioning for spinal anaesthesia.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>One-hundred patients were enrolled and 91 patients completed the trial (S-FIB group <em>n</em> = 46, PENG group <em>n</em> = 45). No significant difference was noted between these two groups in the pain scores (median [interquartile range]) either at rest (0 [0–0] vs 0 [0–0], <em>P</em> = 0.151) or during passive movement (3 [<span><span>[1]</span></span>, <span><span>[2]</span></span>, <span><span>[3]</span></span>, <span><span>[4]</span></span>, <span><span>[5]</span></span>, <span><span>[6]</span></span>] vs 3 [<span><span>[2]</span></span>, <span><span>[3]</span></span>, <span><span>[4]</span></span>, <span><span>[5]</span></span>], <em>P</em> = 0.99) at 30 min after nerve block. However, within-group analysis revealed that a significant reduction in pain score at rest was noted as early as 20 min after PENG block while that was noted only at 30 min after S-FIB. In addition, less time was required to perform PENG than S-FIB the block (3.1 [2.3–3.9] vs. 4.6 [3.1–5.6] minutes, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Our result suggests that with a lower dose of local anaesthetic, a shorter procedure time and earlier analgesic effect, PENG block may be preferred to S-FIB for patients with hip fracture awaiting surgery.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54978,"journal":{"name":"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block versus peri-capsular nerve group (PNEG) block for pain management in patients with hip fracture: A double-blind randomised comparative trial\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.injury.2024.111936\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Regional analgesia has been recommended to alleviate pain caused by hip fractures. Both the supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block (S-FIB) and the peri‑capsular nerve group (PENG) block provide better analgesia than conventional fascia iliaca block for patients with hip fractures, but which one is superior remains equivocal. This study aimed to determine the superiority of S-FIB or PENG block for patients awaiting hip surgery.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In this prospective, double-blind, randomised comparative trial, patients with hip fractures awaiting operation were randomly allocated to receive either S-FIB with 30 ml 0.35 % ropivacaine or PENG block with 20 ml 0.35 % ropivacaine. Primary outcomes were pain scores (numeric rating scale, NRS, 0–10) at rest and during passive movement 30 min after nerve block. Secondary outcomes included pain scores at rest and during movement 10 and 20 min after nerve block and during positioning for spinal anaesthesia, time spent for performing nerve block and spinal anaesthesia, and the quality of positioning for spinal anaesthesia.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>One-hundred patients were enrolled and 91 patients completed the trial (S-FIB group <em>n</em> = 46, PENG group <em>n</em> = 45). No significant difference was noted between these two groups in the pain scores (median [interquartile range]) either at rest (0 [0–0] vs 0 [0–0], <em>P</em> = 0.151) or during passive movement (3 [<span><span>[1]</span></span>, <span><span>[2]</span></span>, <span><span>[3]</span></span>, <span><span>[4]</span></span>, <span><span>[5]</span></span>, <span><span>[6]</span></span>] vs 3 [<span><span>[2]</span></span>, <span><span>[3]</span></span>, <span><span>[4]</span></span>, <span><span>[5]</span></span>], <em>P</em> = 0.99) at 30 min after nerve block. However, within-group analysis revealed that a significant reduction in pain score at rest was noted as early as 20 min after PENG block while that was noted only at 30 min after S-FIB. In addition, less time was required to perform PENG than S-FIB the block (3.1 [2.3–3.9] vs. 4.6 [3.1–5.6] minutes, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Our result suggests that with a lower dose of local anaesthetic, a shorter procedure time and earlier analgesic effect, PENG block may be preferred to S-FIB for patients with hip fracture awaiting surgery.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002013832400665X\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002013832400665X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景区域镇痛被推荐用于减轻髋部骨折引起的疼痛。对于髋部骨折患者,腹股沟上髂筋膜阻滞(S-FIB)和囊周神经群阻滞(PENG)都能提供比传统髂筋膜阻滞更好的镇痛效果,但孰优孰劣仍不明确。在这项前瞻性、双盲、随机比较试验中,等待手术的髋部骨折患者被随机分配接受 30 毫升 0.35 % 罗哌卡因的 S-FIB 或 20 毫升 0.35 % 罗哌卡因的 PENG 阻滞。主要结果是神经阻滞后 30 分钟休息时和被动运动时的疼痛评分(数字评分量表,NRS,0-10)。次要结果包括神经阻滞后 10 分钟和 20 分钟休息和运动时的疼痛评分,以及脊髓麻醉定位时的疼痛评分,进行神经阻滞和脊髓麻醉所花费的时间,以及脊髓麻醉定位的质量。结果 100 名患者参加了试验,91 名患者完成了试验(S-FIB 组 46 人,PENG 组 45 人)。两组患者在神经阻滞后 30 分钟的疼痛评分(中位数[四分位数间距])方面无明显差异,无论是静止时(0 [0-0] vs 0 [0-0],P = 0.151)还是被动运动时(3 [[1]、[2]、[3]、[4]、[5]、[6]] vs 3 [[2]、[3]、[4]、[5]],P = 0.99)。不过,组内分析显示,PENG阻滞后20分钟,静息时的疼痛评分就显著降低,而S-FIB阻滞后30分钟,疼痛评分才显著降低。结论我们的结果表明,对于等待手术的髋部骨折患者来说,PENG阻滞比S-FIB阻滞所需的局麻药剂量更低、手术时间更短、镇痛效果更早,可能是首选。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block versus peri-capsular nerve group (PNEG) block for pain management in patients with hip fracture: A double-blind randomised comparative trial

Background

Regional analgesia has been recommended to alleviate pain caused by hip fractures. Both the supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block (S-FIB) and the peri‑capsular nerve group (PENG) block provide better analgesia than conventional fascia iliaca block for patients with hip fractures, but which one is superior remains equivocal. This study aimed to determine the superiority of S-FIB or PENG block for patients awaiting hip surgery.

Methods

In this prospective, double-blind, randomised comparative trial, patients with hip fractures awaiting operation were randomly allocated to receive either S-FIB with 30 ml 0.35 % ropivacaine or PENG block with 20 ml 0.35 % ropivacaine. Primary outcomes were pain scores (numeric rating scale, NRS, 0–10) at rest and during passive movement 30 min after nerve block. Secondary outcomes included pain scores at rest and during movement 10 and 20 min after nerve block and during positioning for spinal anaesthesia, time spent for performing nerve block and spinal anaesthesia, and the quality of positioning for spinal anaesthesia.

Results

One-hundred patients were enrolled and 91 patients completed the trial (S-FIB group n = 46, PENG group n = 45). No significant difference was noted between these two groups in the pain scores (median [interquartile range]) either at rest (0 [0–0] vs 0 [0–0], P = 0.151) or during passive movement (3 [[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]] vs 3 [[2], [3], [4], [5]], P = 0.99) at 30 min after nerve block. However, within-group analysis revealed that a significant reduction in pain score at rest was noted as early as 20 min after PENG block while that was noted only at 30 min after S-FIB. In addition, less time was required to perform PENG than S-FIB the block (3.1 [2.3–3.9] vs. 4.6 [3.1–5.6] minutes, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Our result suggests that with a lower dose of local anaesthetic, a shorter procedure time and earlier analgesic effect, PENG block may be preferred to S-FIB for patients with hip fracture awaiting surgery.
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
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
8.00%
发文量
699
审稿时长
96 days
期刊介绍: Injury was founded in 1969 and is an international journal dealing with all aspects of trauma care and accident surgery. Our primary aim is to facilitate the exchange of ideas, techniques and information among all members of the trauma team.
×
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