Peripheral Nerve Blocks for Hip Fractures: A Cochrane Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This review focuses on the use of peripheral nerve blocks as preoperative analgesia, as postoperative analgesia, or as a supplement to general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery and tries to determine if they offer any benefit in terms of pain on movement at 30 minutes after block placement, acute confusional state, myocardial infarction/ischemia, pneumonia, mortality, time to first mobilization, and cost of analgesic. METHODS: Trials were identified by computerized searches of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2016, Issue 8), MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1966 to 2016 August week 1), Embase (Ovid SP, 1988 to 2016 August week 1), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCO, 1982 to 2016 August week 1), trials registers, and reference lists of relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials involving the use of nerve blocks as part of the care for hip fractures in adults aged 16 years and older were included. The quality of the studies was rated according to the Cochrane tool. Two authors independently extracted the data. The quality of evidence was judged according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations Working Group scale. RESULTS: Based on 8 trials with 373 participants, peripheral nerve blocks reduced pain on movement within 30 minutes of block placement: standardized mean difference, -1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.14 to -0.67; equivalent to -3.4 on a scale from 0 to 10; I statistic = 90%; high quality of evidence). The effect size was proportional to the concentration of local anesthetic used (P < .00001). Based on 7 trials with 676 participants, no difference was found in the risk of acute confusional state: risk ratio, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.38-1.27; I statistic = 48%; very low quality of evidence). Based on 3 trials with 131 participants, the risk for pneumonia was decreased: risk ratio, 0.41 (95% CI, 0.19-0.89; I statistic = 3%; number needed-to-treat for additional beneficial outcome, 7 [95% CI, 5-72]; moderate quality of evidence). No difference was found for the risk of myocardial ischemia or death within 6 months but the number of participants included was well below the optimum information size for these 2 outcomes. Based on 2 trials with 155 participants, peripheral nerve blocks also reduced the time to first mobilization after surgery: mean difference, -11.25 hours (95% CI, -14.34 to -8.15 hours; I statistic = 52%; moderate quality of evidence). From 1 trial with 75 participants, the cost of analgesic drugs when used as a single-shot block was lower: standardized mean difference, -3.48 (95% CI, -4.23 to -2.74; moderate quality of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence that regional blockade reduces pain on movement within 30 minutes after block placement. There is moderate quality of evidence for a decreased risk of pneumonia, reduced time to first mobilization, and reduced cost of analgesic regimen (single-shot blocks).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".