Pericapsular Nervous Group Block versus Suprainguinal Fascia Iliaca Block Using the Same Injection Volume in Primary HIP Arthroplasty Prospective Observational Study

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL International Journal of Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2024-04-26 DOI:10.1155/2024/6952692
Luis Baeza Álvarez, José Manuel López González, Gustavo Illodo Miramontes, Bárbara María Jiménez Gómez, María Vega Colon, Alejandra Williams Aguirre, Pablo Casas Reza, Servando López Álvarez, Shu-Wei Liao, Bing-Ying Ho, Meng-Ta Yang, Jin-De Hou, Chih-Chung Liu, I-Chi Wu, Jui-An Lin, Felice Galluccio
{"title":"Pericapsular Nervous Group Block versus Suprainguinal Fascia Iliaca Block Using the Same Injection Volume in Primary HIP Arthroplasty Prospective Observational Study","authors":"Luis Baeza Álvarez,&nbsp;José Manuel López González,&nbsp;Gustavo Illodo Miramontes,&nbsp;Bárbara María Jiménez Gómez,&nbsp;María Vega Colon,&nbsp;Alejandra Williams Aguirre,&nbsp;Pablo Casas Reza,&nbsp;Servando López Álvarez,&nbsp;Shu-Wei Liao,&nbsp;Bing-Ying Ho,&nbsp;Meng-Ta Yang,&nbsp;Jin-De Hou,&nbsp;Chih-Chung Liu,&nbsp;I-Chi Wu,&nbsp;Jui-An Lin,&nbsp;Felice Galluccio","doi":"10.1155/2024/6952692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><i>Objectives</i>. To determine the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block’s postoperative analgesic efficacy and safety compared to the suprainguinal fascia iliaca (SFI) block in patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty using the same injectate volume. <i>Material and Methods</i>. Between January 2021 and March 2022, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) classification I–III patients scheduled for hip arthroplasty were included in this study. After standard monitoring and subarachnoid anesthesia, an ultrasound-guided PENG or SFI block with 20 ml of 0.25% levobupivacaine was performed for postoperative analgesia. All patients were assessed with a numerical rating scale (NRS) at presurgery, upon arrival at the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and in the postoperative period at 2, 4, 12, and 24 hours. The need for analgesic rescue and adverse effects was also assessed. <i>Results</i>. A total of 130 patients were included in the study (62 PENG block and 68 SFI block). Both blocks were equally effective in managing postoperative pain without any statistically significant differences except at 12 h (<i>p</i> = 0.023), where the deviation found was not clinically relevant. The median total morphine consumption was 0 mg [0–2] in the PENG block group and 0 mg [0–2] in the SFI block group. A more significant motor block was found in the first 6 hours in the SFI block group (<i>p</i> = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the ease of performing PENG (79%) or SFI (85%) blocks. No major complications were recorded in both groups, and patient satisfaction was high (83.9% for the PENG block group vs. 91.2% for the SFI block group). <i>Discussion</i>. Both blocks have been demonstrated to be effective for postoperative analgesia in hip arthroplasty and should be integrated as a multimodal analgesic strategy. The lesser degree of motor block recorded in the first hours with the PENG block makes it the most suitable option for early recovery. Both techniques were easy and safe to perform.</p>","PeriodicalId":13782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/6952692","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives. To determine the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block’s postoperative analgesic efficacy and safety compared to the suprainguinal fascia iliaca (SFI) block in patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty using the same injectate volume. Material and Methods. Between January 2021 and March 2022, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) classification I–III patients scheduled for hip arthroplasty were included in this study. After standard monitoring and subarachnoid anesthesia, an ultrasound-guided PENG or SFI block with 20 ml of 0.25% levobupivacaine was performed for postoperative analgesia. All patients were assessed with a numerical rating scale (NRS) at presurgery, upon arrival at the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and in the postoperative period at 2, 4, 12, and 24 hours. The need for analgesic rescue and adverse effects was also assessed. Results. A total of 130 patients were included in the study (62 PENG block and 68 SFI block). Both blocks were equally effective in managing postoperative pain without any statistically significant differences except at 12 h (p = 0.023), where the deviation found was not clinically relevant. The median total morphine consumption was 0 mg [0–2] in the PENG block group and 0 mg [0–2] in the SFI block group. A more significant motor block was found in the first 6 hours in the SFI block group (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the ease of performing PENG (79%) or SFI (85%) blocks. No major complications were recorded in both groups, and patient satisfaction was high (83.9% for the PENG block group vs. 91.2% for the SFI block group). Discussion. Both blocks have been demonstrated to be effective for postoperative analgesia in hip arthroplasty and should be integrated as a multimodal analgesic strategy. The lesser degree of motor block recorded in the first hours with the PENG block makes it the most suitable option for early recovery. Both techniques were easy and safe to perform.

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
在原发性髋关节置换术中使用相同注射量进行囊周神经组阻滞与腹股沟上筋膜阻滞的前瞻性观察研究
目的在使用相同注射剂量的情况下,与髂腹股沟上筋膜(SFI)阻滞相比,确定髋关节初次置换术患者的肩胛周围神经组(PENG)阻滞的术后镇痛效果和安全性。材料和方法。2021 年 1 月至 2022 年 3 月期间,美国麻醉医师协会体格状态(ASA-PS)分类 I-III 级的髋关节置换术患者被纳入本研究。在进行标准监测和蛛网膜下腔麻醉后,在超声引导下使用 20 毫升 0.25% 左布比卡因进行 PENG 或 SFI 阻滞,以进行术后镇痛。在手术前、抵达麻醉后护理病房(PACU)时以及术后 2、4、12 和 24 小时,对所有患者进行了数字评分量表(NRS)评估。此外,还对镇痛抢救需求和不良反应进行了评估。结果共有 130 名患者参与了研究(62 名 PENG 阻滞患者和 68 名 SFI 阻滞患者)。这两种阻滞在控制术后疼痛方面效果相当,除 12 小时()外,没有任何统计学上的显著差异,发现的偏差与临床无关。PENG阻滞组的吗啡总用量中位数为0毫克[0-2],SFI阻滞组为0毫克[0-2]。在前 6 小时,SFI 阻滞组的运动阻滞更为明显()。PENG阻滞组(79%)和SFI阻滞组(85%)在操作难易程度上没有明显差异。两组均未出现重大并发症,患者满意度较高(PENG阻滞组为83.9%,SFI阻滞组为91.2%)。讨论。两种阻滞对髋关节置换术的术后镇痛均有效,应作为多模式镇痛策略加以整合。PENG 阻滞在最初几小时内的运动阻滞程度较轻,因此最适合早期恢复。这两种技术操作简单、安全。
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
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
274
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: IJCP is a general medical journal. IJCP gives special priority to work that has international appeal. IJCP publishes: Editorials. IJCP Editorials are commissioned. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Perspectives. Most IJCP Perspectives are commissioned. Example. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Study design and interpretation. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Original data from clinical investigations. In particular: Primary research papers from RCTs, observational studies, epidemiological studies; pre-specified sub-analyses; pooled analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Meta-analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Systematic reviews. From October 2009, special priority will be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] Non-systematic/narrative reviews. From October 2009, reviews that are not systematic will be considered only if they include a discrete Methods section that must explicitly describe the authors'' approach. Special priority will, however, be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] ''How to…'' papers. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Consensus statements. [Always peer reviewed] Short reports. [Always peer reviewed] Letters. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] International scope IJCP publishes work from investigators globally. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the UK. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the USA or Canada. Around 45% of IJCP articles list an author from a European country that is not the UK. Around 15% of articles published in IJCP list an author from a country in the Asia-Pacific region.
期刊最新文献
A Cross-Sectional Study on Nurse-Parent Partnership in the Pediatric Intensive Care Units Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy Reduces Pain and Improves Internal Rotation after Arthroscopic Capsular Release: A Randomized Clinical Trial Why Some People Did Not Want to be Vaccinated against COVID-19? Analysis of Some Psychological Factors Connected with a Decision about Vaccination Predicting the Risk of Fundus Lesions in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Nomogram Model Health Experts’ Perspectives on Barriers, Facilitators, and Needs for Improvement of Hospital Care in the Dying Phase
×
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