Periosteal Nerve Block Vs. Intravenous Morphine in Pain Relief of Distal Radius and Ulna Fracture; a Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

IF 2.9 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.22037/aaem.v11i1.2056
Shadi Ashtari, Alireza Hasanzadeh, Alireza Bahmani, Ali Abdolrazaghnejad
{"title":"Periosteal Nerve Block Vs. Intravenous Morphine in Pain Relief of Distal Radius and Ulna Fracture; a Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Shadi Ashtari,&nbsp;Alireza Hasanzadeh,&nbsp;Alireza Bahmani,&nbsp;Ali Abdolrazaghnejad","doi":"10.22037/aaem.v11i1.2056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Distal forearm fractures' realignment and fixation is a painful procedure. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of periosteal nerve block and intravenous morphine in distal radius and ulna fractures' pain management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In the present randomized, parallel, double-blind, controlled clinical trial, patients with distal radius or ulna fractures were divided into two groups. In the first group, for periosteal nerve block, 1% lidocaine was injected at a distance of 6 to 8 cm near the wrist from the lateral radius and medial ulna. In the second group, morphine sulfate at a dose of 0.1 mg/kg was slowly injected through the peripheral vein within 5 minutes. The visual analog scale (VAS) score was evaluated before the intervention and every 15 minutes until 90 minutes after the intervention and was compared between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>75 subjects were studied (39 in the periosteal nerve block and 36 in the intravenous morphine group). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of mean age (p = 0.384), gender distribution (p = 0.464), past medical history (p = 0.106), trauma type (p = 0.836), fracture type (p = 0.613), and baseline pain severity on VAS (p = 0.987). Both methods reduced the VAS scores during the 90 minutes of the study. The mean pain scores of the patients in the periosteal nerve block group with 2.56±1.44, 2.15±1.11, 2.66±1.26, and 3±1.27 at 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes after the analgesic injection, respectively, were significantly lower than those of the intravenous morphine group with 4.75±1.27, 4.22±1.22, 3.97±1.27, and 4.13±1.35, respectively (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). In the present study, no local or systemic complications were observed in the periosteal nerve block group, while the complications of dyspnea, vomiting, and pruritus were reported by 5.5%, 2.8%, and 2.8%, respectively, in the intravenous morphine group. Moreover, the percentage of need for additional analgesia in the intravenous morphine group was higher than that of the periosteal nerve block group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the first hour after the intervention, pain reduction in periosteal block was significantly higher than intravenous morphine administration. Also, the incidence of complications and the need for additional analgesia were lower in the periosteal block group compared to intravenous morphine administration.</p>","PeriodicalId":8146,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":"11 1","pages":"e51"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/96/a1/aaem-11-e51.PMC10475742.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v11i1.2056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Distal forearm fractures' realignment and fixation is a painful procedure. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of periosteal nerve block and intravenous morphine in distal radius and ulna fractures' pain management.

Methods: In the present randomized, parallel, double-blind, controlled clinical trial, patients with distal radius or ulna fractures were divided into two groups. In the first group, for periosteal nerve block, 1% lidocaine was injected at a distance of 6 to 8 cm near the wrist from the lateral radius and medial ulna. In the second group, morphine sulfate at a dose of 0.1 mg/kg was slowly injected through the peripheral vein within 5 minutes. The visual analog scale (VAS) score was evaluated before the intervention and every 15 minutes until 90 minutes after the intervention and was compared between the two groups.

Results: 75 subjects were studied (39 in the periosteal nerve block and 36 in the intravenous morphine group). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of mean age (p = 0.384), gender distribution (p = 0.464), past medical history (p = 0.106), trauma type (p = 0.836), fracture type (p = 0.613), and baseline pain severity on VAS (p = 0.987). Both methods reduced the VAS scores during the 90 minutes of the study. The mean pain scores of the patients in the periosteal nerve block group with 2.56±1.44, 2.15±1.11, 2.66±1.26, and 3±1.27 at 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes after the analgesic injection, respectively, were significantly lower than those of the intravenous morphine group with 4.75±1.27, 4.22±1.22, 3.97±1.27, and 4.13±1.35, respectively (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). In the present study, no local or systemic complications were observed in the periosteal nerve block group, while the complications of dyspnea, vomiting, and pruritus were reported by 5.5%, 2.8%, and 2.8%, respectively, in the intravenous morphine group. Moreover, the percentage of need for additional analgesia in the intravenous morphine group was higher than that of the periosteal nerve block group.

Conclusion: In the first hour after the intervention, pain reduction in periosteal block was significantly higher than intravenous morphine administration. Also, the incidence of complications and the need for additional analgesia were lower in the periosteal block group compared to intravenous morphine administration.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
骨膜神经阻滞与静脉吗啡对桡骨、尺骨远端骨折疼痛的缓解作用一项双盲随机临床试验
简介:前臂远端骨折的复位和固定是一个痛苦的过程。本研究旨在比较骨膜神经阻滞和静脉注射吗啡治疗桡骨远端骨折和尺骨远端骨折疼痛的疗效。方法:采用随机、平行、双盲、对照临床试验,将桡骨或尺骨远端骨折患者分为两组。第一组骨膜神经阻滞,1%利多卡因在距桡骨外侧、尺骨内侧近腕6 ~ 8 cm处注射。第二组在5分钟内通过外周静脉缓慢注射剂量为0.1 mg/kg的硫酸吗啡。在干预前及干预后每15分钟至90分钟评估一次视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分,比较两组间的差异。结果:共75例受试者(骨膜神经阻滞组39例,静脉注射吗啡组36例)。在平均年龄(p = 0.384)、性别分布(p = 0.464)、既往病史(p = 0.106)、创伤类型(p = 0.836)、骨折类型(p = 0.613)和VAS基线疼痛严重程度(p = 0.987)方面,组间差异无统计学意义。在90分钟的研究中,两种方法都降低了VAS评分。骨膜神经阻滞组患者在镇痛药注射后15、30、45、60分钟的平均疼痛评分分别为2.56±1.44、2.15±1.11、2.66±1.26、3±1.27,显著低于静脉注射吗啡组的4.75±1.27、4.22±1.22、3.97±1.27、4.13±1.35,差异均有统计学意义(p < 0.001)。本研究中,骨膜神经阻滞组未出现局部或全身并发症,而静脉注射吗啡组出现呼吸困难、呕吐和瘙痒的发生率分别为5.5%、2.8%和2.8%。此外,静脉注射吗啡组需要额外镇痛的百分比高于骨膜神经阻滞组。结论:干预后1小时,骨膜阻滞镇痛效果明显高于静脉注射吗啡。此外,与静脉注射吗啡相比,骨膜阻滞组的并发症发生率和额外镇痛的需要更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
7.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Burden of Head Injuries in Iran from 1990 to 2019: Findings from The Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Traumatic Dental Injuries' Prevalence across Diverse Healthcare Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index in Predicting the Mortality of Fournier's Gangrene: Analysis of 14-Year Statistics of Referral Center. 4-methylumbilliferon (4-MU) as a Potential Treatment Against Cerebral ischemia and Reperfusion Injury in Rats; An Experimental Study. Monkeypox: A Comprehensive Review of Virology, Epidemiology, Transmission, Diagnosis, Prevention, Treatment, and Artificial Intelligence Applications.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1