| Literature DB >> 34852764 |
Liang Chen1, Yang Shen2, Shuangmei Liu1, Yanyan Cao1, Zhe Zhu3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hip fracture is common in older adults, and can cause severe post-fracture pain. Fascia iliaca nerve block has consequently been used for preoperative analgesia.Entities:
Keywords: Analgesia; Fascia iliaca compartment block; Hip fracture; Older patients
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34852764 PMCID: PMC8638559 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-021-02646-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 3.921
Fig. 1Flow diagram of the study
The comparison of the patient characteristics between 2 groups
| F group( | C group ( | test | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (male / female) | 6/12 | 6/14 | X2 = 0.049 | 0.825 |
| Age (years) | 72.1 ± 6.0 | 73.8 ± 5.4 | t = −0.939 | 0.354 |
| Height (cm) | 163.8 ± 4.6 | 164.9 ± 4.5 | t = −0.755 | 0.455 |
| Weight (kg) | 60.3 ± 8.7 | 58.4 ± 7.3 | t = 0.763 | 0.450 |
Comparison of duration of the procedure and success ratio of nerve block between two groups
| F group ( | C group ( | test | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| duration of the procedure (min) | 10.5 ± 1.5 | 9.5 ± 1.2 | t = 2.248 | 0.031 |
| femoral nerve (effective/total) | 18/18 | 20/20 | ||
| lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (effective/total) | 15/18 | 10/20 | F = 4.677 | 0.043 |
| obturator nerve (effective/total) | 12/18 | 5/20 | F = 6.653 | 0.021 |
Comparison of resting and exercising VAS scores between the two groups at different time points
| Resting VAS | Exercising VAS | |
|---|---|---|
| F group ( | ||
| T0 | 5.5 ± 1.0 | 7.6 ± 0.9 |
| T1 | 3.0 ± 0.7 | 3.5 ± 0.5 |
| T2 | 2.7 ± 0.7 | 3.4 ± 0.9 a* |
| T3 | 2.9 ± 0.7 | 3.6 ± 0.9 b* |
| T4 | 3.8 ± 1.1 | 4.4 ± 0.9 |
| C group ( | ||
| T0 | 5.2 ± 1.1 | 7.5 ± 1.1 |
| T1 | 3.3 ± 0.8 | 3.9 ± 0.8 |
| T2 | 2.9 ± 0.6 | 4.1 ± 0.6 a* |
| T3 | 3.3 ± 0.6 | 4.3 ± 0.8 b* |
| T4 | 3.6 ± 0.7 | 4.5 ± 0.8 |
Notes
VAS visual analogue scale
aANOVA, F = 6.448, p value = 0.016
bANOVA, F = 5.794, p value = 0.021
*P < 0.05, there was significant difference between the two groups
Comparison of MAP and HR between the two groups at different time points
| MAP (mmHg) | HR (bpm) | |
|---|---|---|
| F group ( | ||
| T0 | 107.1 ± 10.3 | 81.6 ± 4.7 |
| T1 | 106.8 ± 10.6 | 75.2 ± 5.6 |
| T2 | 96.9 ± 8.1 | 70.4 ± 3.7a* |
| T3 | 101.2 ± 9.5 | 72.9 ± 5.7 |
| T4 | 103.2 ± 10.9 | 73.1 ± 4.8b* |
| C group ( | ||
| T0 | 108.2 ± 10.6 | 82.3 ± 6.3 |
| T1 | 107.4 ± 8.5 | 76.7 ± 5.2 |
| T2 | 99.4 ± 8.9 | 73.2 ± 3.4a* |
| T3 | 101.8 ± 8.8 | 73.6 ± 6.8 |
| T4 | 106.5 ± 11.3 | 76.4 ± 5.2b* |
Notes
MAP mean arterial pressure, HR heart rate
aANOVA, F = 5.659, p value = 0.023
bANOVA, F = 4.157, p value = 0.049
*P < 0.05, there was significant difference between the two groups