Pericapsular nerve group block for intracapsular vs. extracapsular hip fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is used increasingly for hip fracture analgesia in emergency departments [1-4]. Cadaveric and clinical studies suggest that, when performed with at least 20 ml of injectate, the PENG block provides analgesia for both intracapsular and extracapsular hip fractures, although greater volumes are associated with an increased risk of undesirable spread to the femoral nerve, resulting in quadriceps weakness [2, 5, 6]. No studies have yet compared the analgesic effect of the PENG block in intracapsular vs. extracapsular hip fracture. Koh et al. investigated the analgesic effect of PENG vs. supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block, which included a sub-analysis of intracapsular and extracapsular groups [7]. There was no statistically significant difference in pain scores between these groups, but the study was not powered for this outcome. However, a key limitation is the inclusion of subtrochanteric fractures, for which the PENG block is not indicated [2]. This likely underestimated the analgesic effect in the extracapsular group and amplified the between-group difference. We conducted a similar exploratory secondary analysis of our recent trial, which investigated the analgesic effect of the PENG block vs. infra-inguinal fascia iliaca block in the emergency department [8]. Among the 30 patients who received a PENG block with an injectate volume of 20 ml, 13 had an intracapsular fracture (subcapital or transcervical) and 17 had an extracapsular fracture (basicervical, intertrochanteric, simple pertrochanteric or multifragmentary pertrochanteric). We found that the interquartile range for visual analogue pain scale values was greater for extracapsular fractures, with nearly identical Q3 values between the two groups and a lower Q1 value in the extracapsular group (Fig. 1). We calculated pain intensity differences from visual analogue pain scale values at each time-point and the summed pain intensity differences. We then obtained the proportion of the summed pain intensity differences for the intracapsular and extracapsular groups as 68% (95%CI 53–83%) and 68% (95%CI 57–78%). These data suggest that the PENG block, performed with 20 ml injectate, may be as effective for extracapsular fractures as it is for intracapsular fractures. Nevertheless, the difference in the dispersion from median values may suggest a less consistent analgesic effect of the PENG block in extracapsular fractures, possibly due to higher variability in the injectate spread to the trochanteric area. We present these data descriptively due to our small sample size and because our study was not powered for this secondary analysis. Future adequately powered studies should clarify if for a given injectate volume, the PENG block results in different analgesic effects in intracapsular and extracapsular fractures. It would also be worthwhile investigating whether these fracture patterns require a different injectate volume for the PENG block to be effective. SDP receives lecture fees and royalties for the implementation of a nerve block simulator from Accurate Srl. The company had no role in the design, conduction or funding of this trial. No other competing interests declared.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".