Comparison of ropivacaine, bupivacaine, and lignocaine in femoral nerve block to position fracture femur patients for central neuraxial blockade in Indian population.

IF 1.7 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Acute and Critical Care Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-30 DOI:10.4266/acc.2023.01606
Manik Seth, Santvana Kohli, Madhu Dayal, Arin Choudhury
{"title":"Comparison of ropivacaine, bupivacaine, and lignocaine in femoral nerve block to position fracture femur patients for central neuraxial blockade in Indian population.","authors":"Manik Seth, Santvana Kohli, Madhu Dayal, Arin Choudhury","doi":"10.4266/acc.2023.01606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with a fractured femur experience intense pain during positioning for neuraxial block for definitive surgery. Femoral nerve block (FNB) is therefore often given prior to positioning for analgesia. In our study, we compare the onset and quality of block of 0.25% bupivacaine, 0.5% ropivacaine, and 1.5% lignocaine for FNB in fracture femur patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seventy-five adult femur fracture patients were equally and randomly divided into three groups to receive 15 ml of either 0.25% bupivacaine (group B), 0.5% ropivacaine (group R), or 1.5% lignocaine (group L) for FNB prior to positioning for neuraxial blockade. Onset and quality of block were assessed, as well as improvement in visual analog scale (VAS) score, ease of positioning, and patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Percentage decrease in VAS was found to be highest in group R (82.8%) followed by groups L and B. Time to achieve a VAS of less than 4 was found to be 26.2±2.4 minutes in group B, 8.5±1.9 minutes in group R, and 4.1±0.7 minutes in group L (P<0.001). In group B, 12 patients required additional fentanyl to achieve a VAS <4. Patient positioning was reported to be satisfactory in all patients in group R and L, while in B it was satisfactory in 13 (52%) patients only. Patient acceptance of FNB was 100% in group R and L, but only 64% in group B.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on our findings, 0.5% ropivacaine is a favorable choice for FNB due to early onset, ability to yield a good quality block, and good safety profile.</p>","PeriodicalId":44118,"journal":{"name":"Acute and Critical Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11167411/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acute and Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.2023.01606","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients with a fractured femur experience intense pain during positioning for neuraxial block for definitive surgery. Femoral nerve block (FNB) is therefore often given prior to positioning for analgesia. In our study, we compare the onset and quality of block of 0.25% bupivacaine, 0.5% ropivacaine, and 1.5% lignocaine for FNB in fracture femur patients.

Methods: Seventy-five adult femur fracture patients were equally and randomly divided into three groups to receive 15 ml of either 0.25% bupivacaine (group B), 0.5% ropivacaine (group R), or 1.5% lignocaine (group L) for FNB prior to positioning for neuraxial blockade. Onset and quality of block were assessed, as well as improvement in visual analog scale (VAS) score, ease of positioning, and patient satisfaction.

Results: Percentage decrease in VAS was found to be highest in group R (82.8%) followed by groups L and B. Time to achieve a VAS of less than 4 was found to be 26.2±2.4 minutes in group B, 8.5±1.9 minutes in group R, and 4.1±0.7 minutes in group L (P<0.001). In group B, 12 patients required additional fentanyl to achieve a VAS <4. Patient positioning was reported to be satisfactory in all patients in group R and L, while in B it was satisfactory in 13 (52%) patients only. Patient acceptance of FNB was 100% in group R and L, but only 64% in group B.

Conclusions: Based on our findings, 0.5% ropivacaine is a favorable choice for FNB due to early onset, ability to yield a good quality block, and good safety profile.

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
在印度人群中,比较罗哌卡因、布比卡因和利多卡因在股神经阻滞中对股骨骨折患者进行中枢神经阻滞定位的效果。
背景:股骨骨折患者在为明确手术进行神经阻滞定位时会感到剧烈疼痛。因此,股神经阻滞(FNB)通常在定位镇痛之前进行。在我们的研究中,我们比较了 0.25% 布比卡因、0.5% 罗哌卡因和 1.5% 利格诺卡因用于股骨骨折患者股神经阻滞的起效时间和阻滞质量:将75名成年股骨骨折患者平均随机分为三组,分别接受15毫升0.25%布比卡因(B组)、0.5%罗哌卡因(R组)或1.5%木质素卡因(L组)进行FNB,然后进行神经阻滞定位。对阻滞的起效和质量、视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分的改善、定位的难易程度和患者满意度进行了评估:结果显示:R 组的 VAS 下降百分比最高(82.8%),其次是 L 组和 B 组;B 组达到 VAS 小于 4 分的时间为 26.2±2.4分钟,R 组为 8.5±1.9分钟,L 组为 4.1±0.7分钟:根据我们的研究结果,0.5% 罗哌卡因起效早,能产生高质量的阻滞,且安全性高,是 FNB 的理想选择。
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
Acute and Critical Care
Acute and Critical Care CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
11.10%
发文量
87
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
A clinical risk score for predicting acute kidney injury in sepsis patients receiving normal saline in Northern Thailand: a retrospective cohort study. A quasi-experimental study to assess the effect of Benson's relaxation on anxiety and depression among patients with heart failure in Jordan. A study to assess the psychosocial needs of patient family members in the intensive care unit in India. Critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency: latest pathophysiology and management guidelines. Incidence of hypothermia in critically ill patients receiving continuous renal replacement therapy in Siriraj Hospital, Thailand.
×
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