静脉镇痛和各种神经阻滞治疗老年髋部骨折患者疼痛的疗效:一项荟萃分析。

IF 1.8 2区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Yuping Liu, Li Zhou, Xin Wang
{"title":"静脉镇痛和各种神经阻滞治疗老年髋部骨折患者疼痛的疗效:一项荟萃分析。","authors":"Yuping Liu, Li Zhou, Xin Wang","doi":"10.1111/os.70090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Pain management in elderly patients with hip fractures has received more and more attention, which is crucial for promoting recovery and reducing complications. At present, there are various and controversial analgesic methods for this population. This meta-analysis evaluated the analgesic effects and side effects of intravenous analgesia compared to different nerve block techniques, including femoral nerve block, fascia iliaca block or pericapsular nerve group block, in this patient group. The study was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A search was performed in October 2024 across PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Pain scores at different time points, supplemental analgesic morphine consumption, and adverse reactions were compared between intravenous analgesia and nerve blocks. Data were collected from 12 studies and 1157 elderly patients using intravenous analgesia and nerve block after hip fracture, with no differences in sample size, mean age, or percentage of females between the two groups at baseline. Compared to intravenous analgesia, nerve blocks showed significant advantages in the pain score of 2 h after block (SMD-0.80; 95% CI: -1.23 to -0.38; I<sup>2</sup> = 90%) and the supplemental analgesic morphine consumption (SMD = -0.46; 95% CI: -0.73 to -0.19; I<sup>2</sup> = 59%). The incidence of adverse reactions and the pain scores at various time points also demonstrated significant differences between the two groups. The application of nerve blocks in elderly patients with hip fractures demonstrates significant clinical advantages, particularly in postoperative pain management, decreasing opioid use, and reducing postoperative complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":19566,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Efficacy of Intravenous Analgesia and Various Nerve Blocks for Pain Management in Elderly Patients With Hip Fractures: A Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yuping Liu, Li Zhou, Xin Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/os.70090\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Pain management in elderly patients with hip fractures has received more and more attention, which is crucial for promoting recovery and reducing complications. At present, there are various and controversial analgesic methods for this population. This meta-analysis evaluated the analgesic effects and side effects of intravenous analgesia compared to different nerve block techniques, including femoral nerve block, fascia iliaca block or pericapsular nerve group block, in this patient group. The study was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A search was performed in October 2024 across PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Pain scores at different time points, supplemental analgesic morphine consumption, and adverse reactions were compared between intravenous analgesia and nerve blocks. Data were collected from 12 studies and 1157 elderly patients using intravenous analgesia and nerve block after hip fracture, with no differences in sample size, mean age, or percentage of females between the two groups at baseline. Compared to intravenous analgesia, nerve blocks showed significant advantages in the pain score of 2 h after block (SMD-0.80; 95% CI: -1.23 to -0.38; I<sup>2</sup> = 90%) and the supplemental analgesic morphine consumption (SMD = -0.46; 95% CI: -0.73 to -0.19; I<sup>2</sup> = 59%). The incidence of adverse reactions and the pain scores at various time points also demonstrated significant differences between the two groups. The application of nerve blocks in elderly patients with hip fractures demonstrates significant clinical advantages, particularly in postoperative pain management, decreasing opioid use, and reducing postoperative complications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19566,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Orthopaedic Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Orthopaedic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/os.70090\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/os.70090","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

老年髋部骨折患者的疼痛管理越来越受到重视,对促进患者康复和减少并发症至关重要。目前,针对这一人群的镇痛方法多种多样且存在争议。本荟萃分析比较了不同神经阻滞技术(包括股神经阻滞、髂筋膜阻滞或囊包神经组阻滞)在该患者组中的镇痛效果和副作用。该研究是按照PRISMA 2020指南进行的。我们于2024年10月在PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane Library和Embase上进行了检索。比较静脉镇痛与神经阻滞两组在不同时间点的疼痛评分、补充镇痛吗啡用量及不良反应。数据收集自12项研究和1157例髋部骨折后使用静脉镇痛和神经阻滞的老年患者,两组在基线时的样本量、平均年龄或女性百分比没有差异。与静脉镇痛相比,神经阻滞在阻滞后2 h疼痛评分上有显著优势(SMD-0.80;95% CI: -1.23 ~ -0.38;I2 = 90%)和补充镇痛吗啡用量(SMD = -0.46;95% CI: -0.73 ~ -0.19;i2 = 59%)。两组不良反应发生率及各时间点疼痛评分差异均有统计学意义。神经阻滞在老年髋部骨折患者中的应用显示出显著的临床优势,特别是在术后疼痛管理、减少阿片类药物使用和减少术后并发症方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Efficacy of Intravenous Analgesia and Various Nerve Blocks for Pain Management in Elderly Patients With Hip Fractures: A Meta-Analysis.

Pain management in elderly patients with hip fractures has received more and more attention, which is crucial for promoting recovery and reducing complications. At present, there are various and controversial analgesic methods for this population. This meta-analysis evaluated the analgesic effects and side effects of intravenous analgesia compared to different nerve block techniques, including femoral nerve block, fascia iliaca block or pericapsular nerve group block, in this patient group. The study was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A search was performed in October 2024 across PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Pain scores at different time points, supplemental analgesic morphine consumption, and adverse reactions were compared between intravenous analgesia and nerve blocks. Data were collected from 12 studies and 1157 elderly patients using intravenous analgesia and nerve block after hip fracture, with no differences in sample size, mean age, or percentage of females between the two groups at baseline. Compared to intravenous analgesia, nerve blocks showed significant advantages in the pain score of 2 h after block (SMD-0.80; 95% CI: -1.23 to -0.38; I2 = 90%) and the supplemental analgesic morphine consumption (SMD = -0.46; 95% CI: -0.73 to -0.19; I2 = 59%). The incidence of adverse reactions and the pain scores at various time points also demonstrated significant differences between the two groups. The application of nerve blocks in elderly patients with hip fractures demonstrates significant clinical advantages, particularly in postoperative pain management, decreasing opioid use, and reducing postoperative complications.

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
Orthopaedic Surgery
Orthopaedic Surgery ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
374
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopaedic Surgery (OS) is the official journal of the Chinese Orthopaedic Association, focusing on all aspects of orthopaedic technique and surgery. The journal publishes peer-reviewed articles in the following categories: Original Articles, Clinical Articles, Review Articles, Guidelines, Editorials, Commentaries, Surgical Techniques, Case Reports and Meeting Reports.
×
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