Dataset Information

Peripheral nerve blocks for hip fractures.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Various nerve blocks with local anaesthetic agents have been used to reduce pain after hip fracture and subsequent surgery. This review was published originally in 1999 and was updated in 2001, 2002, 2009 and 2017.

Objectives

This review focuses on the use of peripheral nerves blocks as preoperative analgesia, as postoperative analgesia or as a supplement to general anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery. We undertook the update to look for new studies and to update the methods to reflect Cochrane standards.

Search methods

For the updated review, we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8), MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1966 to August week 1 2016), Embase (Ovid SP, 1988 to 2016 August week 1) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO, 1982 to August week 1 2016), as well as trial registers and reference lists of relevant articles.

Selection criteria

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving use of nerve blocks as part of the care provided for adults aged 16 years and older with hip fracture.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors independently assessed new trials for inclusion, determined trial quality using the Cochrane tool and extracted data. When appropriate, we pooled results of outcome measures. We rated the quality of evidence according to the GRADE Working Group approach.

Main results

We included 31 trials (1760 participants; 897 randomized to peripheral nerve blocks and 863 to no regional blockade). Results of eight trials with 373 participants show that peripheral nerve blocks reduced pain on movement within 30 minutes of block placement (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.14 to -0.67; equivalent to -3.4 on a scale from 0 to 10; I² = 90%; high quality of evidence). Effect size was proportionate to the concentration of local anaesthetic used (P < 0.00001). Based on seven trials with 676 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of acute confusional state (risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.27; I² = 48%; very low quality of evidence). Three trials with 131 participants reported decreased risk for pneumonia (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.89; I² = 3%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 7, 95% CI 5 to 72; moderate quality of evidence). We did not find a difference in risk of myocardial ischaemia or death within six months, but the number of participants included was well below the optimal information size for these two outcomes. Two trials with 155 participants reported that peripheral nerve blocks also reduced time to first mobilization after surgery (mean difference -11.25 hours, 95% CI -14.34 to -8.15 hours; I² = 52%; moderate quality of evidence). One trial with 75 participants indicated that the cost of analgesic drugs was lower when they were given as a single shot block (SMD -3.48, 95% CI -4.23 to -2.74; moderate quality of evidence).

Authors' conclusions

High-quality evidence shows that regional blockade reduces pain on movement within 30 minutes after block placement. Moderate-quality evidence shows reduced risk for pneumonia, decreased time to first mobilization and cost reduction of the analgesic regimen (single shot blocks).

SUBMITTER: Guay J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6481480 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Peripheral nerve block (PNB) has been shown to be safe and effective, and its use has continued to increase, but it is not without risks. One potentially preventable risk is wrong-site blocks (WSBs). Our institution mandated a time-out process before PNB in 2003, and then in 2007 made two more changes to our policy to mitigate risk: (1) the circulating/block nurse was the only person permitted to access the block needles; after a time-out period was complete, the nurse gave the needles to the anesthesiologist; and (2) the nurse remained at the patient's bedside until the PNB was initiated. Purpose: We sought to compare the incidence of WSBs before and after this time-out process was implemented in 2003 and the enhanced form of it was implemented in 2007. We hypothesized that the enhanced process would decrease the incidence of WSBs. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data, from January 2003 to December 2016, taken from the quality assurance and performance improvement (QA/PI) division of the anesthesiology department at our institution, which maintained daily statistics on anesthetic types using quality audits from paper or electronic anesthesia records. All WSBs from this period were reported to the QA/PI division and root cause analyses performed. The incidence of WSB was compared pre- and post-implementation of the enhanced time-out policy for upper extremity, lower extremity, and all blocks by calculating relative risks with 95% score confidence intervals and performing Fisher's exact tests. Results: The incidence of WSBs decreased from 1.10/10,000 before changes to the policy were initiated to 0.24/10,000 afterward. Conclusion: We observed an association between the implementation of a dynamic, team-focused time-out process and a reduction in the incidence of WSBs at our institution. A causal effect of the enhanced time-out cannot be determined given the risk of bias associated with before-after study designs and our lack of adjustment for potential confounders. Further research is therefore warranted.