Departments of Orthopedic Surgery.
General Surgery.
J Orthop Trauma. 2019 Apr;33(4):e124-e130. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001388.
To investigate whether a conventional fracture hematoma block (FHB) or an ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block has more superior analgesic effect during nonoperative management of distal radius fractures in an emergency department setting. Two peripheral nerve block types were investigated, one at the level of the elbow, or cubital nerve block (CNB), and another an axillary nerve block (ANB).
Two prospective randomized controlled studies were performed to compare the difference in pain intensity during closed reduction of a distal radius fracture between FHB-, CNB-, and, ANB-treated patients.
Level 2 trauma center.
One hundred ten patients with radiographic displaced distal radius fractures were randomized. Fifty patients were randomized between FHB and CNB, and 60 patients were randomized between CNB and ANB.
FHB, CNB, or ANB. These were performed by 3 physicians new to ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks and trained before onset of this study.
Pain was sequentially measured using an NRS during closed distal radius fracture reduction.
CNB patients experienced less pain during block procedure (P = 0.002), finger trap traction (P = 0.007), fracture reduction (P = 0.00001), after plaster cast application (P = 0.01), and after control radiography (P = 0.01). In our second study, ANB-treated patients reported less pain during block procedure (P = 0.04), during finger trap traction (P < 0.0001), fracture reduction (P < 0.0001), after plaster cast application (P = 0.0001), and after control radiography (P = 0.0005).
Although participating clinicians had minimal expertise using ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, nonoperative management of distal radius fracture using an ANB was less painful. These block types are expected to completely eradicate sensation the best. Future studies should address technical factors including adequate placement and time to let the block set up, as well as issues such as resource utilization including time and clinician availability to better determine the relative advantages and disadvantages to other analgesia techniques such as the FHB.
Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
研究在急诊科非手术治疗桡骨远端骨折时,传统血肿块(FHB)或超声引导外周神经阻滞在镇痛方面是否具有更优效果。研究了两种外周神经阻滞类型,一种在肘部水平,即肘神经阻滞(CNB),另一种为腋神经阻滞(ANB)。
进行了两项前瞻性随机对照研究,比较 FHB、CNB 和 ANB 治疗患者在闭合复位桡骨远端骨折过程中的疼痛强度差异。
二级创伤中心。
110 名影像学显示桡骨远端移位骨折的患者被随机分组。50 名患者被随机分为 FHB 与 CNB 组,60 名患者被随机分为 CNB 与 ANB 组。
FHB、CNB 或 ANB。这些操作由 3 位新接触超声引导外周神经阻滞且在本研究开始前接受过培训的医生进行。
使用 NRS 连续测量闭合性桡骨远端骨折复位过程中的疼痛。
CNB 患者在阻滞过程(P = 0.002)、手指夹牵引(P = 0.007)、骨折复位(P = 0.00001)、石膏固定后(P = 0.01)和控制放射检查后(P = 0.01)时疼痛程度较低。在我们的第二项研究中,ANB 治疗患者在阻滞过程(P = 0.04)、手指夹牵引(P < 0.0001)、骨折复位(P < 0.0001)、石膏固定后(P = 0.0001)和控制放射检查后(P = 0.0005)时报告的疼痛程度较低。
尽管参与的临床医生在使用超声引导外周神经阻滞方面经验有限,但使用 ANB 进行桡骨远端骨折的非手术治疗疼痛程度较低。这些阻滞类型有望完全消除感觉。未来的研究应解决包括适当的置管位置和阻滞起效时间等技术因素,以及资源利用问题,包括时间和临床医生的可用性,以便更好地确定与 FHB 等其他镇痛技术的相对优势和劣势。
治疗性 II 级。请参阅作者须知,以获取完整的证据水平描述。