MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3186335072 · doi:10.4103/joacp.joacp_295_20

Pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block for hip fractures

2021· article· en· W3186335072 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rajendra Kumar Sahoo, Ashok Jadon, Santosh Kumar Sharma, Abhijit Nair

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAnesthesia and Pain Management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineAnterior superior iliac spineIliopsoasBupivacaineSurgeryNerve blockHip fractureTendonFemoral nerveAnesthesiaAnatomy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Dear Editor, We had been routinely doing either fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) or femoral nerve block (FNB) in hip fractures with good result.[1] After the claimed analgesic efficacy of pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block, we decided to evaluate this block in our patients.[2] After informed written consent, we performed ultrasound (US)-guided PENG block in 9 patients posted for hip fracture surgery [Table 1]. All patients received PENG block in the preoperative area. Pre-block visual analogue scale (VAS) score at rest, and with 15° passive straight leg-raise (SLR) were recorded.Table 1: Demographic dataStandard monitoring (non-invasive blood pressure, pulse oximetry and ECG) was used. A curvilinear probe (2–5 MHz Vivid iq, GE Healthcare) was first placed at anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) in transverse plane, and then moved caudally to identify anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS). Then the probe was rotated to align AIIS and iliopubic eminence (IPE) [Figure 1a]. After iliopsoas tendon (IPT) and muscle were revealed together with femoral vessels superficially, 21 G 100 mm echogenic needle (Ultraplex®360, B Braun Melsungen, Germany) was inserted in-plane from lateral to medial and the tip was kept at the midpoint of AIIS and IPE, deep to the psoas tendon. Initially hydrolocation was deployed with normal saline to lift psoas tendon, and then, 20 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine with 4 mg dexamethasone was injected in 5 ml aliquots after negative aspiration [Figure 1b]. Local anesthetic (LA) spread was appreciated with lifting of IPT and medial spread [Figure 1c]. Then, VAS at rest and passive movement (15° SLR) was measured 30 min later. Subsequently, patients were taken to OT for spinal anesthesia (SA) [10–12 mg of hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine heavy in sitting position]. We also documented the ease of sitting for conduct of SA which was graded as: 0- not satisfactory, 1- satisfactory, 2- good, 3- optimal. At 24 h post-block, we also took patients' feedback on this block: 1- good, if necessary, will not hesitate for repeat block in future; 2- bad, will never opt for it. Duration of the surgery lasted between 70 and 90 min. All patients received intravenous (IV) paracetamol 1 gm towards the end of the surgery and 8th hourly thereafter along with IV tramadol 50 mg if VAS ≥5. None of the patients needed any additional analgesics in the PACU as VAS was 0 in the immediate postoperative period.Figure 1: (a) Figure showing position of the hip, probe orientation, and needle insertion. (b) Figure shows sonoanatomy of the block with needle (marked with white arrow) insertion from lateral to medial. Tip is below the psoas tendon (marked with asterix). FN- Femoral nerve, FA- Femoral artery, AIIS- Anterior inferior iliac spine, IPE- Iliopubic eminence. (c) Local anaesthetic (LA) spread just below the psoas tendon and further mediallyVAS was assessed before and after block (both rest and movement), 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h postoperatively [Table 2]. Five out of 9 patients reported no pain (VAS 0) at rest and 4 reported VAS 1. Similarly, with dynamic movement, 1 patient reported no pain whereas rest described their VAS 1 to 2. At 24 h, highest pain score reported was 4 (by 4 patients), whereas 4 patients reported VAS 3 and 1 patient described VAS 1. The highest VAS was reported even during turning around in the bed and flexion of hip. However, none of the patients were mobilized in the first 24 h. Anesthesiologist performing SA reported that sitting position provided for SA was optimal, good and satisfactory in 56%, 22% and 22% patients, respectively.Table 2: Visual Analogue Pain (VAS) score at various points (expressed as mean±SD)PENG block is a musculofascial plane block between psoas tendon and pubic ramus targeting the articular branches of FN and accessory obturator nerve (AON).[2] Later, the same authors found that dye stains not only the articular branches of FN, AON but also obturator nerve (ON); thus, blocking all 3 sensory nerves innervating the anterior hip joint.[3] After the initial description, other authors had found similar analgesic benefit in hip arthroscopy.[4] Unlike FICB and FNB, PENG block targets the pain carrying articular branches and this eliminates the risk of motor weakness produced by FICB and FNB. Girón-Arango et al. found median drop of 7 points in pain score following the PENG block.[2] We also noticed similar reduction in pain score in our series of patients. Although Yu et al. reported 2 cases of quadriceps weakness following PENG block we did not notice any side effects.[5] There is a need to compare a case control study or comparative study between PENG and FICB to see analgesic benefit, ambulation, hospital stay and patient comfort in positioning for SA. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest. Acknowledgement Authors sincerely acknowledge the inputs provided by Prof Philip Peng, Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Canada in refining the manuscript and critical suggestions.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,167
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,657

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,051
Tête enseignante GPT0,414
Écart entre enseignants0,363 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations17
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Anaesthesiology Clinical PharmacologyMême sujetAnesthesia and Pain ManagementTravaux en français237 207