7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Fascia iliaca compartment block versus no block for pain control after lower limb surgery: a meta-analysis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The analgesic effect of fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) versus no block (NB) after lower limb surgery (LLS) is still controversial, so we performed this meta-analysis.

          Materials and methods

          By searching the PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library (last update by July 20, 2017), randomized controlled trials comparing the analgesic effect of FICB versus NB in patients receiving LLS were identified. The primary outcome was the pain scores at 4, 12, and 24 h after LLS. The dosage of morphine at 24 h was also collected. The side effect of anesthesia was assessed according to the occurrence rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

          Results

          Data from 7 clinical trials that included 508 patients were summarized. The results showed that patients receiving FICB had lower pain scores at 4 h (mean difference [MD]=−1.17; 95% CI=−2.30 to −0.05; P=0.041), 12 h (MD=−0.41; 95% CI=−0.76 to −0.05; P=0.026) and 24 h (MD=−0.96; 95% CI=−1.77 to −0.15; P=0.020) after LLS. Besides, FICB could reduce the dosage of morphine at 24 h (MD=−2.06; 95% CI=−3.82 to −0.30; P=0.022) and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (relative risk rate=0.44, 95% CI=0.24–0.80, P=0.008).

          Conclusion

          Compared with NB, FICB is an effective and safe method for alleviating the pain after LLS. More high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this finding.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Fascia iliaca compartment blockade for acute pain control in hip fracture patients: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

          Hip fracture patients are in severe pain upon arrival at the emergency department. Pain treatment is traditionally based on systemic opioids. No study has examined the effect of fascia iliaca compartment blockade (FICB) in acute hip fracture pain management within a double-blind, randomized setup. Forty-eight patients with suspected hip fracture were included immediately after arrival in the emergency department, before x-ray confirmation of their fracture. Included patients were randomly assigned to two groups of 24. In the FICB group, the patients received an FICB with 1.0% mepivacaine and a placebo intramuscular injection of isotonic saline. In the morphine group, the patients received a placebo FICB with 0.9% saline and an intramuscular injection of 0.1 mg/kg morphine. Patients received intravenous rescue morphine when necessary. Maximum pain relief was superior in the FICB group both at rest (P < 0.01) and on movement (P = 0.02). The median total morphine consumption was 0 mg (interquartile range, 0-0 mg) in the FICB group and 6 mg (interquartile range, 5-7 mg) in the morphine group (P < 0.01). More patients (P = 0.05) were sedated in the morphine group at 180 min after block placement as compared with the FICB group. Pain relief was superior at all times and at all measurements in the FICB group. The study supports the use of FICB in acute management of hip fracture pain because it is an effective, easily learned procedure that also may reduce opioid side effects in this fragile, elderly group of patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Fascia iliaca block prophylaxis for hip fracture patients at risk for delirium: a randomized placebo-controlled study

            Background Recent studies have indicated that unmanaged pain, both acute and chronic, can affect mental status and might precipitate delirium, especially in elderly patients with hip fractures. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) for prevention of perioperative delirium in hip surgery patients who were at intermediate or high risk for this complication. Materials and methods On admission, all included patients were divided into three groups according to low, intermediate or high risk for perioperative delirium. Eligible patients (those classified as at intermediate or high risk for developing delirium) were sequentially randomly assigned to study treatment (FICB prophylaxis or placebo) according to a computer-generated randomization code. The primary outcome was perioperative delirium. Diagnosis of the syndrome was defined using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) and Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) criteria. Secondary outcome variables were severity of delirium and delirium duration. Results Delirium occurred in 33 (15.94%) out of 207 patients randomized to FICB prophylaxis or the placebo group. Incidence of delirium in the FICB prophylaxis group was 10.78% (11/102), significantly different from the incidence (23.8%, 25/105) in the placebo group [relative risk 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23–0.87]. Nine of 17 patients with high risk for delirium and included in the FICB prophylaxis group developed delirium, whereas 10 of 16 high-risk patients included in the placebo group became delirious (relative risk 0.84, CI 0.47–1.52). Two of 85 patients with intermediate risk for delirium and included in the FICB prophylaxis group developed delirium, whereas 15 of 89 intermediate-risk patients included in the placebo group became delirious (relative risk 0.13, CI 0.03–0.53). Severity of delirium according to the highest value of the DRSR-98 during an episode with delirium in patients in the FICB prophylaxis group was on average 14.34, versus 18.61 in the placebo group (mean difference 4.27, 95% CI 1.8–5.64, P < 0.001). Mean duration of delirium in the FICB prophylaxis group was significantly shorter than in the placebo group (FICB 5.22 days versus placebo 10.97 days, 95% CI 3.87–7.62, P < 0.001). Conclusion No significant difference was found among high-risk patients between FICB prophylaxis and placebo groups in terms of delirium incidence. However, FICB prophylaxis significantly prevented delirium occurrence in intermediate-risk patients. Thus FICB prophylaxis could be beneficial, particularly for intermediate-risk patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Systematic review of hip fracture rehabilitation practices in the elderly.

              To address the need for a research synthesis on the effectiveness of the full range of hip fracture rehabilitation interventions for older adults and make evidence based conclusions. Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1980 to 2007 for studies published in English. The terms rehabilitation and hip fracture were exploded in order to obtain related search terms and categories. In the initial search of the databases, a combined total of 1031 articles was identified. Studies that did not focus on hip fracture rehabilitation, did not include persons over the age of 50 years, and/or did not include measures of physical outcome were excluded. Only studies with an Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence level of I (randomized controlled trial, RCT) or II (cohort) were reviewed. The methodologic quality of both types of studies was assessed using a modified version of the Downs and Black checklist. There were 55 studies that met our selection criteria: 30 RCTs and 25 nonrandomized trials. They were distributed across 6 categories for rehabilitation intervention (care pathways, early rehabilitation, interdisciplinary care, occupational and physical therapy, exercise, intervention not specified) and 3 settings (acute care hospital, postacute care/rehabilitation, postrehabilitation). When looking across all of the intervention types, the most frequently reported positive outcomes were associated with measures of ambulatory ability. Eleven intervention categories across 3 settings were associated with improved ambulatory outcomes. Seven intervention approaches were related to improved functional recovery, while 6 intervention approaches were related to improved strength and balance recovery. Decreased length of stay and increased falls self-efficacy were associated with 2 interventions, while 1 intervention had a positive effect on lower-extremity power generation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Pain Res
                J Pain Res
                Journal of Pain Research
                Journal of Pain Research
                Dove Medical Press
                1178-7090
                2017
                14 December 2017
                : 10
                : 2833-2841
                Affiliations
                Department of Anesthesiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, China
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Xiaoxuan Bu, Department of Anesthesiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 185 Juqian Street, Changzhou 213003, Jiangsu Province, China, Tel +86 5 196 887 0000, Email xiaoxuanbu@ 123456126.com
                Article
                jpr-10-2833
                10.2147/JPR.S149647
                5734232
                © 2017 Yang et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article