+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparing Analgesic Effect of Intravenous Fentanyl, Femoral Nerve Block and Fascia Iliaca Block During Spinal Anesthesia Positioning in Elective Adult Patients Undergoing Femoral Fracture Surgery: a Randomized Controlled Trial

      Read this article at

          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.



          Femoral fracture is the most painful bone injury and performing spinal anesthesia is extremely challenging due to very poor positioning unless we have a very good mode of analgesia. Intravenous strong opioids are commonly used but to date nerve blocks are also being utilized. The reliability and effectiveness of the aforementioned methods are not conclusive to practice worldwide. The objective of the study was to compare the analgesic effect of intravenous fentanyl, femoral nerve block (FNB) and fascia iliaca block (FICB) during positioning patients with femoral fracture for spinal anesthesia.


          A randomized controlled trial study was conducted on 72 elective adult patients with femoral fracture aged 18–65 years and ASA I and II those were allocated randomly into three groups. The intravenous fentanyl (IVFE) group received 1µg/kg IV fentanyl, FNB group received nerve stimulator guided FNB with 30 mL of 1% lidocaine with adrenaline and FICB group received FICB with 30 mL of 1% lidocaine with adrenaline. Pain intensity in numeric rating score (NRS), time to perform spinal anesthesia, quality of positioning and patient acceptance were assessed. SPSS version 26 and Kruskal–Wallis test were used to analyze data and p value <0.05 was considered significant.


          NRS Pain score during positioning was significantly lower in FNB and FICB groups than IVFE group [median (IQR)]; 2 (1–2.5), 2 (2–3)) vs. 3 (3–4) respectively; P<0.001 and P=0.001. However, FNB and FICB groups were not significantly different with (P=1.000). Time to perform spinal anesthesia was significantly longer in IVFE group 9.5 (9–10) minutes than both FNB and FICB groups 7 (6–8), 8 (6–8) respectively, P<0.001. The quality of positioning was significantly lower in the IVFE group than both FNB and FICB groups (P<0.001).


          Preoperative FNB and FICB reduce pain score during positioning, shorten time to perform spinal anesthesia, better patient positioning and higher patient acceptance in a patient undergoing elective femoral bone fracture surgery.

          Trial Registration

          Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, PACTR202006669166858, registered on June 19, 2020. https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/TrialDisplay.aspx?TrialID=12127 .

          Related collections

          Most cited references 19

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

          Opioid complications and side effects.

          Medications which bind to opioid receptors are increasingly being prescribed for the treatment of multiple and diverse chronic painful conditions. Their use for acute pain or terminal pain is well accepted. Their role in the long-term treatment of chronic noncancer pain is, however, controversial for many reasons. One of the primary reasons is the well-known phenomenon of psychological addiction that can occur with the use of these medications. Abuse and diversion of these medications is a growing problem as the availability of these medications increases and this public health issue confounds their clinical utility. Also, the extent of their efficacy in the treatment of pain when utilized on a chronic basis has not been definitively proven. Lastly, the role of opioids in the treatment of chronic pain is also influenced by the fact that these potent analgesics are associated with a significant number of side effects and complications. It is these phenomena that are the focus of this review. Common side effects of opioid administration include sedation, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, constipation, physical dependence, tolerance, and respiratory depression. Physical dependence and addiction are clinical concerns that may prevent proper prescribing and in turn inadequate pain management. Less common side effects may include delayed gastric emptying, hyperalgesia, immunologic and hormonal dysfunction, muscle rigidity, and myoclonus. The most common side effects of opioid usage are constipation (which has a very high incidence) and nausea. These 2 side effects can be difficult to manage and frequently tolerance to them does not develop; this is especially true for constipation. They may be severe enough to require opioid discontinuation, and contribute to under-dosing and inadequate analgesia. Several clinical trials are underway to identify adjunct therapies that may mitigate these side effects. Switching opioids and/or routes of administration may also provide benefits for patients. Proper patient screening, education, and preemptive treatment of potential side effects may aid in maximizing effectiveness while reducing the severity of side effects and adverse events. Opioids can be considered broad spectrum analgesic agents, affecting a wide number of organ systems and influencing a large number of body functions.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            General vs. neuraxial anaesthesia in hip fracture patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

            Background Hip fracture is a trauma of the elderly. The worldwide number of patients in need of surgery after hip fracture will increase in the coming years. The 30-day mortality ranges between 4 and 14%. Patients’ outcome may be improved by anaesthesia technique (general vs. neuraxial anaesthesia). There is a dearth of evidence from randomised studies regarding to the optimal anaesthesia technique. However, several large non-randomised studies addressing this question have been published from the onset of 2010. Methods To compare the 30-day mortality rate, in-hospital mortality rate and length of hospital stay after neuraxial (epidural/spinal) or general anaesthesia in hip fracture patients (≥ 18 years old) we prepared a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic search for appropriate retrospective observational and prospective randomised studies in Embase and PubMed databases was performed in the time-period from 01.01.2010 to 21.11.2016. Additionally a forward searching in google scholar, a level one reference list searching and a formal searching of trial registries was performed. Results Twenty retrospective observational and three prospective randomised controlled studies were included. There was no difference in the 30-day mortality [OR 0.99; 95% CI (0.94 to 1.04), p = 0.60] between the general and the neuraxial anaesthesia group. The in-hospital mortality [OR 0.85; 95% CI (0.76 to 0.95), p = 0.004] and the length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the neuraxial anaesthesia group [MD -0.26; 95% CI (−0.36 to −0.17); p < 0.00001]. Conclusion Neuraxial anaesthesia is associated with a reduced in-hospital mortality and length of hospitalisation. However, type of anaesthesia did not influence the 30-day mortality. In future there is a need for large randomised studies to examine the association between the type of anaesthesia, post-operative complications and mortality.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Different effects of indomethacin on healing of shaft and metaphyseal fractures

              Background and purpose NSAIDs are commonly used in the clinic, and there is a general perception that this does not influence healing in common types of human fractures. Still, NSAIDs impair fracture healing dramatically in animal models. These models mainly pertain to fractures of cortical bone in shafts, whereas patients more often have corticocancellous fractures in metaphyses. We therefore tested the hypothesis that the effect of an NSAID is different in shaft healing and metaphyseal healing. Methods 26 mice were given an osteotomy of their left femur with an intramedullary nail. 13 received injections of indomethacin, 1 mg/kg twice daily. After 17 days of healing, the femurs were analyzed with 3-point bending and microCT. 24 other mice had holes drilled in both proximal tibias, to mimic a stable metaphyseal injury. A screw was inserted in the right tibial hole only. After 7 days of indomethacin injections or control injections, screw fixation was measured with mechanical pull-out testing and the side without a screw was analyzed with microCT. Results In the shaft model, indomethacin led to a 35% decrease in force at failure (95% CI: 14–54). Callus size was reduced to a similar degree, as seen by microCT. Metaphyseal healing was less affected by indomethacin, as no effect on pull-out force could be seen (95% CI: –27 to 17) and there was only a small drop in new bone volume inside the drill hole. The difference in the relative effect of indomethacin between the 2 models was statistically significant (p = 0.006). Interpretation Indomethacin had a minimal effect on stable metaphyseal fractures, but greatly impaired healing of unstable shaft fractures. This could explain some of the differences found between animal models and clinical experience.

                Author and article information

                J Pain Res
                J Pain Res
                Journal of Pain Research
                26 November 2020
                : 13
                : 3139-3146
                [1 ]Debre Berhan University, College of Medicine and Health Science , Debre Birhan, Ethiopia
                [2 ]Dilla University, College of Medicine and Health Science , Dilla, Ethiopia
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Simeneh Mola Dilla University, College of Medicine and Health Science , Dilla0419/13, EthiopiaTel +251 901091414 Email ksimenehmola@yahoo.com
                © 2020 Bantie 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. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 8, References: 19, Pages: 8
                Funded by: Dilla University;
                Dilla University has funded the research project. The sponsor has no any role other than enhancing staff research and academic activity. The sponsor didn’t take part in any action of the research project other than funding.
                Original Research


                Comment on this article