髋关节骨折围手术期疼痛的介入治疗:一篇综述

IF 0.4 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Z. Lim, C. W. Liu, D. Chan
{"title":"髋关节骨折围手术期疼痛的介入治疗:一篇综述","authors":"Z. Lim, C. W. Liu, D. Chan","doi":"10.1177/20101058221106282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Hip fracture is a common reason for elderly admission to hospital and majority of patients will require a hip fixation surgery. Pain originating from a hip fracture is usually severe and the need to improve comfort is paramount, especially before the hip fixation surgery because severe pain results in unnecessary stress response such as catecholamines release, tachycardia and hypertension. This worsens outcomes, increases risk of complications such as myocardial ischaemia, strokes, pulmonary embolus or deep vein thrombosis. Multimodal systemic analgesia has been shown to be effective in reducing pain in hip fractures but the associated side effects and contraindications have accelerated the adoption of nerve blocks in the peri-operative management of hip fracture patients. 1 As a result, this has been increasingly recognised as a important component of the hip fracture pathway (as part of a multimodal approach for analgesia) and many hospitals have protocols to perform various interventional therapies (various nerve blocks) for newly admitted patients with hip fracture to alleviate pain immediately and potentially provide intra and post-operative analgesia. Objective The aim of this review is to elucidate the various interventional therapies currently available (including pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block which was first described in 2018), their evidence and the pros and cons. Methods We reviewed the latest evidence for femoral nerve block (FNB), 3-in-1 block, lumbar plexus block (LPB), fascia iliaca block (FIB), erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block. Results and conclusion Each block has its pros and cons, as discussed in this review article. The procedurist should deliberate these considerations before deciding which block is most appropriate.","PeriodicalId":44685,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of Singapore Healthcare","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interventional therapies for management of hip fracture pain peri-operatively: A review article\",\"authors\":\"Z. Lim, C. W. Liu, D. Chan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20101058221106282\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Hip fracture is a common reason for elderly admission to hospital and majority of patients will require a hip fixation surgery. Pain originating from a hip fracture is usually severe and the need to improve comfort is paramount, especially before the hip fixation surgery because severe pain results in unnecessary stress response such as catecholamines release, tachycardia and hypertension. This worsens outcomes, increases risk of complications such as myocardial ischaemia, strokes, pulmonary embolus or deep vein thrombosis. Multimodal systemic analgesia has been shown to be effective in reducing pain in hip fractures but the associated side effects and contraindications have accelerated the adoption of nerve blocks in the peri-operative management of hip fracture patients. 1 As a result, this has been increasingly recognised as a important component of the hip fracture pathway (as part of a multimodal approach for analgesia) and many hospitals have protocols to perform various interventional therapies (various nerve blocks) for newly admitted patients with hip fracture to alleviate pain immediately and potentially provide intra and post-operative analgesia. Objective The aim of this review is to elucidate the various interventional therapies currently available (including pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block which was first described in 2018), their evidence and the pros and cons. Methods We reviewed the latest evidence for femoral nerve block (FNB), 3-in-1 block, lumbar plexus block (LPB), fascia iliaca block (FIB), erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block. Results and conclusion Each block has its pros and cons, as discussed in this review article. The procedurist should deliberate these considerations before deciding which block is most appropriate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44685,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of Singapore Healthcare\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of Singapore Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20101058221106282\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of Singapore Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20101058221106282","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景髋部骨折是老年人入院的常见原因,大多数患者需要进行髋关节固定手术。髋部骨折引起的疼痛通常很严重,改善舒适度的需求至关重要,尤其是在髋关节固定手术之前,因为剧烈疼痛会导致不必要的应激反应,如儿茶酚胺释放、心动过速和高血压。这会恶化结果,增加并发症的风险,如心肌缺血、中风、肺栓塞或深静脉血栓形成。多模式全身镇痛已被证明能有效减轻髋部骨折的疼痛,但相关的副作用和禁忌症加速了神经阻滞在髋部骨折患者围手术期管理中的应用。1因此,这一点越来越被认为是髋部骨折途径的重要组成部分(作为多模式镇痛方法的一部分),许多医院都有协议为新入院的髋部骨折患者进行各种介入治疗(各种神经阻滞),以立即缓解疼痛,并有可能提供术中和术后镇痛。目的本综述的目的是阐明目前可用的各种介入治疗方法(包括2018年首次描述的包膜周围神经组(PENG)阻滞)、它们的证据和优缺点。方法回顾股神经阻滞(FNB)、三合一阻滞、腰丛阻滞(LPB)、髂筋膜阻滞(FIB)、竖脊平面阻滞(ESPB)和囊周神经群阻滞(PENG)的最新证据。结果和结论如本文所述,每个区块都有其优缺点。在决定哪一块最合适之前,程序主义者应该仔细考虑这些因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interventional therapies for management of hip fracture pain peri-operatively: A review article
Background Hip fracture is a common reason for elderly admission to hospital and majority of patients will require a hip fixation surgery. Pain originating from a hip fracture is usually severe and the need to improve comfort is paramount, especially before the hip fixation surgery because severe pain results in unnecessary stress response such as catecholamines release, tachycardia and hypertension. This worsens outcomes, increases risk of complications such as myocardial ischaemia, strokes, pulmonary embolus or deep vein thrombosis. Multimodal systemic analgesia has been shown to be effective in reducing pain in hip fractures but the associated side effects and contraindications have accelerated the adoption of nerve blocks in the peri-operative management of hip fracture patients. 1 As a result, this has been increasingly recognised as a important component of the hip fracture pathway (as part of a multimodal approach for analgesia) and many hospitals have protocols to perform various interventional therapies (various nerve blocks) for newly admitted patients with hip fracture to alleviate pain immediately and potentially provide intra and post-operative analgesia. Objective The aim of this review is to elucidate the various interventional therapies currently available (including pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block which was first described in 2018), their evidence and the pros and cons. Methods We reviewed the latest evidence for femoral nerve block (FNB), 3-in-1 block, lumbar plexus block (LPB), fascia iliaca block (FIB), erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block. Results and conclusion Each block has its pros and cons, as discussed in this review article. The procedurist should deliberate these considerations before deciding which block is most appropriate.
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
Proceedings of Singapore Healthcare
Proceedings of Singapore Healthcare MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
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