关节内利多卡因与手术镇静肩关节脱位复位:一项随机试验。

IF 1.2 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-28 DOI:10.4103/jets.jets_49_22
Tony Zitek, Nicholas Koneri, Nikkitta Georges, Matthew Slane
{"title":"关节内利多卡因与手术镇静肩关节脱位复位:一项随机试验。","authors":"Tony Zitek,&nbsp;Nicholas Koneri,&nbsp;Nikkitta Georges,&nbsp;Matthew Slane","doi":"10.4103/jets.jets_49_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Two common ways of providing anesthesia for shoulder dislocation reductions in the emergency department (ED) are intra-articular lidocaine (IAL) injections and procedural sedation (PS). We sought to compare PS with propofol or etomidate to IAL for shoulder dislocation reductions in the ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was an open-label, randomized controlled trial of patients aged 18-70 years with anterior shoulder dislocations who presented to a single ED. We randomized patients to either PS or IAL for their shoulder dislocation reduction. The primary outcome measure was ED length of stay (LOS). Secondarily, we assessed patient satisfaction and the number of attempts required for successful reduction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 60 patients who met the criteria for enrollment, and were able to enroll 43. We randomized 23 patients to IAL and 20 to PS. In the IAL group, the mean ED LOS was 133 min as compared to 124 min for the PS group (difference 9 min [95% confidence interval (CI)-22-41], <i>P</i> = 0.54). Patients in the IAL group required an average of 1.9 reduction attempts as compared to 1.2 in the PS group (difference of 0.7 [95% CI 0.2-1.2]). The mean patient satisfaction scores were similar at 9.7 and 9.8 for the IAL and PS groups, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study lacked a sufficient sample size to detect small differences but found no statistically significant difference in mean ED LOS or patient satisfaction for patients who received IAL as compared to PS. Patients in the PS group required fewer attempts for successful reduction.</p>","PeriodicalId":15692,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9639727/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intra-Articular Lidocaine versus Procedural Sedation for Shoulder Dislocation Reduction: A Randomized Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Tony Zitek,&nbsp;Nicholas Koneri,&nbsp;Nikkitta Georges,&nbsp;Matthew Slane\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jets.jets_49_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Two common ways of providing anesthesia for shoulder dislocation reductions in the emergency department (ED) are intra-articular lidocaine (IAL) injections and procedural sedation (PS). We sought to compare PS with propofol or etomidate to IAL for shoulder dislocation reductions in the ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was an open-label, randomized controlled trial of patients aged 18-70 years with anterior shoulder dislocations who presented to a single ED. We randomized patients to either PS or IAL for their shoulder dislocation reduction. The primary outcome measure was ED length of stay (LOS). Secondarily, we assessed patient satisfaction and the number of attempts required for successful reduction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 60 patients who met the criteria for enrollment, and were able to enroll 43. We randomized 23 patients to IAL and 20 to PS. In the IAL group, the mean ED LOS was 133 min as compared to 124 min for the PS group (difference 9 min [95% confidence interval (CI)-22-41], <i>P</i> = 0.54). Patients in the IAL group required an average of 1.9 reduction attempts as compared to 1.2 in the PS group (difference of 0.7 [95% CI 0.2-1.2]). The mean patient satisfaction scores were similar at 9.7 and 9.8 for the IAL and PS groups, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study lacked a sufficient sample size to detect small differences but found no statistically significant difference in mean ED LOS or patient satisfaction for patients who received IAL as compared to PS. Patients in the PS group required fewer attempts for successful reduction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15692,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9639727/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jets.jets_49_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/9/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jets.jets_49_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在急诊科(ED)肩关节脱位复位手术中,两种常用的麻醉方法是关节内利多卡因(IAL)注射和手术镇静(PS)。我们试图比较PS、异丙酚或依托米酯与IAL对ED肩关节脱位复位的影响。方法:这是一项开放标签、随机对照试验,患者年龄为18-70岁,肩关节前脱位,出现单一ED。我们将患者随机分为PS或IAL两组进行肩关节脱位复位。主要结局指标为ED住院时间(LOS)。其次,我们评估了患者满意度和成功复位所需的尝试次数。结果:我们确定了60例符合入组标准的患者,并成功入组了43例。我们将23名患者随机分配到IAL组,20名患者随机分配到PS组。IAL组的平均ED LOS为133分钟,而PS组为124分钟(差异为9分钟[95%置信区间(CI)-22-41], P = 0.54)。IAL组患者平均需要1.9次复位尝试,而PS组为1.2次(差异为0.7 [95% CI 0.2-1.2])。IAL组和PS组的平均患者满意度得分相似,分别为9.7和9.8。结论:这项研究缺乏足够的样本量来检测微小的差异,但发现与PS相比,接受IAL的患者在平均ED LOS或患者满意度方面没有统计学上的显著差异。PS组患者需要更少的成功复位尝试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Intra-Articular Lidocaine versus Procedural Sedation for Shoulder Dislocation Reduction: A Randomized Trial.

Intra-Articular Lidocaine versus Procedural Sedation for Shoulder Dislocation Reduction: A Randomized Trial.

Introduction: Two common ways of providing anesthesia for shoulder dislocation reductions in the emergency department (ED) are intra-articular lidocaine (IAL) injections and procedural sedation (PS). We sought to compare PS with propofol or etomidate to IAL for shoulder dislocation reductions in the ED.

Methods: This was an open-label, randomized controlled trial of patients aged 18-70 years with anterior shoulder dislocations who presented to a single ED. We randomized patients to either PS or IAL for their shoulder dislocation reduction. The primary outcome measure was ED length of stay (LOS). Secondarily, we assessed patient satisfaction and the number of attempts required for successful reduction.

Results: We identified 60 patients who met the criteria for enrollment, and were able to enroll 43. We randomized 23 patients to IAL and 20 to PS. In the IAL group, the mean ED LOS was 133 min as compared to 124 min for the PS group (difference 9 min [95% confidence interval (CI)-22-41], P = 0.54). Patients in the IAL group required an average of 1.9 reduction attempts as compared to 1.2 in the PS group (difference of 0.7 [95% CI 0.2-1.2]). The mean patient satisfaction scores were similar at 9.7 and 9.8 for the IAL and PS groups, respectively.

Conclusions: This study lacked a sufficient sample size to detect small differences but found no statistically significant difference in mean ED LOS or patient satisfaction for patients who received IAL as compared to PS. Patients in the PS group required fewer attempts for successful reduction.

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
2.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
52
审稿时长
39 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