Comparison of Pericapsular Nerve Group Block versus Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block as Postoperative Pain Management in Hip Fracture Surgeries

Premvrat Kumar, KS Senthil, Lakshmi Ramakrishnan
{"title":"Comparison of Pericapsular Nerve Group Block versus Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block as Postoperative Pain Management in Hip Fracture Surgeries","authors":"Premvrat Kumar, KS Senthil, Lakshmi Ramakrishnan","doi":"10.4103/aer.aer_119_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Objectives: Postoperative pain management and early recovery play an important role in the functional outcome following hip surgeries. Recently, pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block has been used as a good alternative for postoperative pain management following hip fracture surgeries. We compared the efficacy of (PENG) block and fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) as postoperative pain management in hip surgeries. Methods: Forty patients of the age group of 18 years and older of American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classes I and II scheduled for hip fracture were selected and the patients were randomly allocated into two groups. Group A comprised of 20 patients who received PENG block and Group B comprised of 20 patients who received FICB. 30 mL 0.25% Levobupivacaine and 4 mg dexamethasone was given for both blocks. The following outcomes were measured: Total fentanyl consumption in 24 h, dynamic pain during 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, and 24 h, Visual Analog Pain score during 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, and 24 h, quadriceps femoris muscle strength. Results: Even though there was no significant difference in the duration of analgesia and dynamic pain grades between these blocks, there was notable difference in Visual Analog Pain score and the motor power of quadriceps femoris which indicates the potency of sensory blockade and decrease in motor sparing was significantly seen in PENG block than FICB. Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that PENG block was more appropriate analgesic modality than FICB in patients undergoing hip surgeries as postoperative analgesic.","PeriodicalId":7798,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches","volume":"1 1","pages":"352 - 356"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aer.aer_119_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Postoperative pain management and early recovery play an important role in the functional outcome following hip surgeries. Recently, pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block has been used as a good alternative for postoperative pain management following hip fracture surgeries. We compared the efficacy of (PENG) block and fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) as postoperative pain management in hip surgeries. Methods: Forty patients of the age group of 18 years and older of American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classes I and II scheduled for hip fracture were selected and the patients were randomly allocated into two groups. Group A comprised of 20 patients who received PENG block and Group B comprised of 20 patients who received FICB. 30 mL 0.25% Levobupivacaine and 4 mg dexamethasone was given for both blocks. The following outcomes were measured: Total fentanyl consumption in 24 h, dynamic pain during 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, and 24 h, Visual Analog Pain score during 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, and 24 h, quadriceps femoris muscle strength. Results: Even though there was no significant difference in the duration of analgesia and dynamic pain grades between these blocks, there was notable difference in Visual Analog Pain score and the motor power of quadriceps femoris which indicates the potency of sensory blockade and decrease in motor sparing was significantly seen in PENG block than FICB. Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that PENG block was more appropriate analgesic modality than FICB in patients undergoing hip surgeries as postoperative analgesic.
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
髋部骨折术后疼痛治疗中囊包膜神经群阻滞与髂筋膜腔室阻滞的比较
背景和目的:术后疼痛管理和早期恢复在髋关节手术后的功能预后中起着重要作用。最近,囊周神经阻滞(PENG)已被用作髋部骨折术后疼痛管理的一种很好的替代方法。我们比较了(PENG)阻滞和髂筋膜间室阻滞(FICB)作为髋关节手术术后疼痛管理的疗效。方法:选取年龄在18岁及以上的美国麻醉医师学会物理状态I、II类髋部骨折患者40例,随机分为两组。A组20例患者接受PENG阻滞,B组20例患者接受FICB。两次阻滞均给予0.25%左布比卡因30 mL和地塞米松4 mg。测量以下结果:24小时芬太尼总消耗量,2、6、10、14、18和24小时的动态疼痛,2、6、10、14、18和24小时的视觉模拟疼痛评分,股四头肌肌力。结果:尽管镇痛时间和动态疼痛等级在这两种阻滞之间没有显著差异,但视觉模拟疼痛评分和股四头肌运动功率有显著差异,这表明彭阻滞比FICB阻滞更明显地观察到感觉阻滞的强度和运动保留的减少。结论:本研究结果表明,在髋关节手术患者中,PENG阻滞比FICB更适合作为术后镇痛方式。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A comparison of two prophylactic doses of ephedrine to attenuate the hemodynamic responses in adults receiving propofol in general anesthesia; a South Indian perspective Comparison of hemodynamic stability with continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring and intermittent oscillometric blood pressure monitoring in hospitalized patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis Thoracic epidural analgesia vs. intravenous analgesia in blunt thoracic trauma patients, managed conservatively with noninvasive ventilation (NIV): A prospective observational study Comparison of postoperative analgesic effects of gelfoam soaked with ropivacaine 0.5% and gelfoam soaked with dexamethasone 8 mg with placebo in single-level lumbar laminectomy A Randomised Control Study Comparing C-MAC D-Blade Video Laryngoscope (Hyper Angulated Blade) and Macintosh Laryngoscope for Insertion of a Double-Lumen Tube in Patients Undergoing Elective Thoracotomy.
×
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