在门诊桡骨远端骨折固定术的区域麻醉中,直接与外周辅助地塞米松对持续时间和反跳痛的疗效:前瞻性随机对照盲法研究》。

IF 1.8 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS HAND Pub Date : 2024-09-11 DOI:10.1177/15589447241270678
Alexis A Kasper, Kyle Plusch, Armen Voskerijian, David Barnabei, Michael Rivlin, Pedro K Beredjiklian, Mark L Wang
{"title":"在门诊桡骨远端骨折固定术的区域麻醉中,直接与外周辅助地塞米松对持续时间和反跳痛的疗效:前瞻性随机对照盲法研究》。","authors":"Alexis A Kasper, Kyle Plusch, Armen Voskerijian, David Barnabei, Michael Rivlin, Pedro K Beredjiklian, Mark L Wang","doi":"10.1177/15589447241270678","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite increasingly wider use, there remains controversy among anesthesiologists regarding preferred formulations and the role of steroid adjuvants in regional anesthesia. There is also uncertainty in the role of dexamethasone when administered directly versus peripherally. We hypothesize that directly mixing dexamethasone into the regional nerve block rather than peripherally administered intravenous dexamethasone will demonstrate a difference in efficacy concerning duration and rebound pain, decreased postoperative pain scores, or opioid consumption within the short-term postoperative period.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective, randomized controlled blinded study was conducted for patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation with a volar plate technique for distal radius fractures. Patients were randomized for their preoperative anesthesia. One group had ultrasound-guided supraclavicular block with ropivacaine with a direct mix of dexamethasone 4 mg (Direct group), while the other group had ultrasound-guided supraclavicular block with ropivacaine and peripheral intravenous dexamethasone 4 mg (Indirect group). Data was collected pre, intra, and postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty patients consented and participated in the study, with 27 participants in the direct group and 23 participants in the indirect group. Compared to intravenous administration, directly administered dexamethasone demonstrated a significant difference in the average time for the block to fade, onset of motor and sensory recovery, and block resolution.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings prove that directly mixing dexamethasone compared to peripherally administered intravenous dexamethasone will demonstrate a difference in efficacy with regards to duration and rebound pain, but do not prove that there will be a difference in decreased postoperative pain scores or opioid consumption within the 24-hour postoperative period.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Prognosis Level I.</p>","PeriodicalId":12902,"journal":{"name":"HAND","volume":" ","pages":"15589447241270678"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11559785/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of Direct Versus Peripheral Adjuvant Dexamethasone on Duration and Rebound Pain in Regional Anesthesia for Outpatient Distal Radius Fracture Fixation: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Blinded Study.\",\"authors\":\"Alexis A Kasper, Kyle Plusch, Armen Voskerijian, David Barnabei, Michael Rivlin, Pedro K Beredjiklian, Mark L Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15589447241270678\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite increasingly wider use, there remains controversy among anesthesiologists regarding preferred formulations and the role of steroid adjuvants in regional anesthesia. There is also uncertainty in the role of dexamethasone when administered directly versus peripherally. We hypothesize that directly mixing dexamethasone into the regional nerve block rather than peripherally administered intravenous dexamethasone will demonstrate a difference in efficacy concerning duration and rebound pain, decreased postoperative pain scores, or opioid consumption within the short-term postoperative period.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective, randomized controlled blinded study was conducted for patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation with a volar plate technique for distal radius fractures. Patients were randomized for their preoperative anesthesia. One group had ultrasound-guided supraclavicular block with ropivacaine with a direct mix of dexamethasone 4 mg (Direct group), while the other group had ultrasound-guided supraclavicular block with ropivacaine and peripheral intravenous dexamethasone 4 mg (Indirect group). Data was collected pre, intra, and postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty patients consented and participated in the study, with 27 participants in the direct group and 23 participants in the indirect group. Compared to intravenous administration, directly administered dexamethasone demonstrated a significant difference in the average time for the block to fade, onset of motor and sensory recovery, and block resolution.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings prove that directly mixing dexamethasone compared to peripherally administered intravenous dexamethasone will demonstrate a difference in efficacy with regards to duration and rebound pain, but do not prove that there will be a difference in decreased postoperative pain scores or opioid consumption within the 24-hour postoperative period.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Prognosis Level I.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12902,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"HAND\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"15589447241270678\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11559785/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"HAND\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"92\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15589447241270678\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HAND","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15589447241270678","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管类固醇在区域麻醉中的应用越来越广泛,但麻醉医生对其首选配方和作用仍存在争议。地塞米松直接给药与外周给药的作用也存在不确定性。我们假设,在区域神经阻滞中直接混入地塞米松,而不是外周静脉注射地塞米松,在持续时间和反跳痛、术后疼痛评分降低或术后短期内阿片类药物用量等方面的疗效会有所不同:对桡骨远端骨折患者进行了一项前瞻性随机对照盲法研究。患者的术前麻醉被随机分配。一组在超声引导下使用罗哌卡因进行锁骨上阻滞,并直接混合地塞米松 4 毫克(直接组);另一组在超声引导下使用罗哌卡因进行锁骨上阻滞,并外周静脉注射地塞米松 4 毫克(间接组)。收集了术前、术中和术后的数据:50名患者同意并参与研究,其中直接组27人,间接组23人。与静脉给药相比,直接给药地塞米松在阻滞消退的平均时间、运动和感觉恢复的开始时间以及阻滞解除的时间上都有显著差异:我们的研究结果证明,直接混用地塞米松与外周静脉注射地塞米松相比,在持续时间和反跳痛方面的疗效存在差异,但不能证明术后疼痛评分或术后24小时内阿片类药物用量的减少存在差异:预后 I 级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Efficacy of Direct Versus Peripheral Adjuvant Dexamethasone on Duration and Rebound Pain in Regional Anesthesia for Outpatient Distal Radius Fracture Fixation: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Blinded Study.

Background: Despite increasingly wider use, there remains controversy among anesthesiologists regarding preferred formulations and the role of steroid adjuvants in regional anesthesia. There is also uncertainty in the role of dexamethasone when administered directly versus peripherally. We hypothesize that directly mixing dexamethasone into the regional nerve block rather than peripherally administered intravenous dexamethasone will demonstrate a difference in efficacy concerning duration and rebound pain, decreased postoperative pain scores, or opioid consumption within the short-term postoperative period.

Methods: A prospective, randomized controlled blinded study was conducted for patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation with a volar plate technique for distal radius fractures. Patients were randomized for their preoperative anesthesia. One group had ultrasound-guided supraclavicular block with ropivacaine with a direct mix of dexamethasone 4 mg (Direct group), while the other group had ultrasound-guided supraclavicular block with ropivacaine and peripheral intravenous dexamethasone 4 mg (Indirect group). Data was collected pre, intra, and postoperatively.

Results: Fifty patients consented and participated in the study, with 27 participants in the direct group and 23 participants in the indirect group. Compared to intravenous administration, directly administered dexamethasone demonstrated a significant difference in the average time for the block to fade, onset of motor and sensory recovery, and block resolution.

Conclusion: Our findings prove that directly mixing dexamethasone compared to peripherally administered intravenous dexamethasone will demonstrate a difference in efficacy with regards to duration and rebound pain, but do not prove that there will be a difference in decreased postoperative pain scores or opioid consumption within the 24-hour postoperative period.

Level of evidence: Prognosis Level I.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
HAND
HAND Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
209
期刊介绍: HAND is the official journal of the American Association for Hand Surgery and is a peer-reviewed journal featuring articles written by clinicians worldwide presenting current research and clinical work in the field of hand surgery. It features articles related to all aspects of hand and upper extremity surgery and the post operative care and rehabilitation of the hand.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of 2 Types of Local Anesthetic Techniques in the Reduction of Distal Radius Fracture: A Prospective Cohort Study. Ischemia Time in Extremity Allotransplantation: A Comprehensive Review. The Super-Turbocharged End-to-Side Abductor Digiti Minimi and Anterior Interosseous Double Nerve Transfer Is Associated With Improved Ulnar Intrinsic Function. Chatbot Demonstrates Moderate Interrater Reliability in Billing for Hand Surgery Clinic Encounters. Financial Toxicity Among Patients With Traumatic Finger Amputation: A Retrospective Study.
×
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