Femoral nerve blocks versus standard pain control for hip fractures: a retrospective comparative analysis.

IF 1.9 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-29 DOI:10.15441/ceem.23.112
Solomon Geizhals, You Shou, Simone Rudnin, Maria Tama, Josh Greenstein, Barry Hahn, Jerel Chacko, Joseph Basile, Joseph Marino
{"title":"Femoral nerve blocks versus standard pain control for hip fractures: a retrospective comparative analysis.","authors":"Solomon Geizhals, You Shou, Simone Rudnin, Maria Tama, Josh Greenstein, Barry Hahn, Jerel Chacko, Joseph Basile, Joseph Marino","doi":"10.15441/ceem.23.112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Pain control for hip fractures is often achieved via intravenous opioids. However, opioids can have dangerous adverse effects, including respiratory depression and delirium. Peripheral nerve blockade is an alternative option for pain control that reduces the need for opioid analgesia. The purpose of this study was to compare the use of femoral nerve blocks versus standard pain control for patients with hip fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included adult patients presenting to the emergency department with isolated hip fractures between April 2021 and September 2022. The intervention group included all patients who received a femoral nerve block during this time. An equivalent number of patients who received standard pain control during that period was randomly selected to represent the control group. The primary outcome was preoperative opioid requirement, assessed by morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study period, 90 patients were included in each group. Mean preoperative MME was 10.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.4-13.2 MME) for the intervention group and 14.0 (95% CI, 10.2-17.8 MME) for the control group (P=0.13). Patients who received a femoral nerve block also had shorter time from emergency department triage to hospital discharge (7.2 days; 95% CI, 6.2-8.0 days) than patients who received standard care (8.6 days; 95% CI, 7.210.0 days). However, this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.09).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Femoral nerve blockade is a safe and effective alternative to opioids for pain control in patients with hip fractures.</p>","PeriodicalId":10325,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"181-187"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11237263/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15441/ceem.23.112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Pain control for hip fractures is often achieved via intravenous opioids. However, opioids can have dangerous adverse effects, including respiratory depression and delirium. Peripheral nerve blockade is an alternative option for pain control that reduces the need for opioid analgesia. The purpose of this study was to compare the use of femoral nerve blocks versus standard pain control for patients with hip fractures.

Methods: This retrospective study included adult patients presenting to the emergency department with isolated hip fractures between April 2021 and September 2022. The intervention group included all patients who received a femoral nerve block during this time. An equivalent number of patients who received standard pain control during that period was randomly selected to represent the control group. The primary outcome was preoperative opioid requirement, assessed by morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs).

Results: During the study period, 90 patients were included in each group. Mean preoperative MME was 10.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.4-13.2 MME) for the intervention group and 14.0 (95% CI, 10.2-17.8 MME) for the control group (P=0.13). Patients who received a femoral nerve block also had shorter time from emergency department triage to hospital discharge (7.2 days; 95% CI, 6.2-8.0 days) than patients who received standard care (8.6 days; 95% CI, 7.210.0 days). However, this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.09).

Conclusion: Femoral nerve blockade is a safe and effective alternative to opioids for pain control in patients with hip fractures.

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
股神经阻滞与髋部骨折的标准止痛方法:回顾性对比分析
简介髋部骨折的疼痛控制通常通过静脉注射阿片类药物来实现。然而,阿片类药物会产生危险的不良反应,包括呼吸抑制和谵妄。外周神经阻滞是疼痛控制的另一种选择,可减少对阿片类镇痛药的需求。本研究旨在比较髋部骨折患者使用股神经阻滞与标准止痛的效果:这项回顾性研究纳入了 2021 年 4 月至 2022 年 9 月间因孤立性髋部骨折前往急诊科(ED)就诊的成年患者。干预组包括在此期间接受股神经阻滞治疗的所有患者。随机抽取在此期间接受标准疼痛控制的同等数量患者作为对照组。主要结果是术前阿片类药物需求量,以吗啡毫克当量(MME)评估:研究期间,每个治疗组均有 90 名患者。干预组的术前平均吗啡毫克当量为 10.3(95% 置信区间[CI]:7.4-13.2 MME),对照组为 14.0(95% 置信区间[CI]:10.2-17.8)(P=0.13)。接受股神经阻滞的患者从急诊室分诊到出院的时间(7.2 天,95% CI:6.2-8.0 天)也比接受标准护理的患者短(8.6 天,95% CI:7.2-10.0 天)。尽管如此,这一差异并无统计学意义(P=0.09):股神经阻滞是髋部骨折患者控制疼痛的一种安全有效的替代阿片类药物的方法。
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
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
10.50%
发文量
59
期刊最新文献
Acute iodinate contrast medium reaction: look at the CT images! Assessing the efficacy of electrocardiogram for heart rate evaluation during newborn resuscitation at birth: a prospective observational study. Case of multiple acute cerebral infarctions after blunt cerebrovascular injuries. Epidemiology of Deep Venous Thrombosis Among United States Emergency Departments Over an Eight-Year Period. Floating thrombus involving the aortic arch in a woman.
×
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