Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38623129›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Comparative Evaluation of Analgesic Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Pericapsular Nerve Group Block and Femoral Nerve Block During Positioning of Patients With Hip Fractures for Spinal Anesthesia: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Study.

Annamale Jeevendiran, Srinivasan Suganya, Chinthavali Sujatha, Jayashridevi Rajaraman, Surya R, Arthi Asokan, Radhakrishnan A

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Annamale JeevendiranAnaesthesiology and Critical Care, Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Puducherry, IND.
Srinivasan SuganyaAnaesthesiology and Critical Care, Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Puducherry, IND.
Chinthavali SujathaAnaesthesiology and Critical Care, Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Puducherry, IND.
Jayashridevi RajaramanAnaesthesiology and Critical Care, Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Puducherry, IND.
Surya RAnaesthesiology and Critical Care, Saveetha Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, IND.
Arthi AsokanAnaesthesiology and Critical Care, Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Puducherry, IND.
Radhakrishnan AAnaesthesiology and Critical Care, Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Puducherry, IND.
Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHip fractures cause severe pain during positioning for spinal anesthesia (SA). Intravenous systemic analgesics can lead to various complications in elderly patients, hence peripheral nerve blocks are emerging as a standard of care in pain management for hip fractures, among which femoral nerve block (FNB) is widely known and practiced. Pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is a recently described technique that blocks the articular nerves of the hip with motor-sparing effects and is used to manage positional pain in hip fractures. This study aims to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of PENG block over FNB in managing pain during positioning before SA in hip fractures. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. After ethical clearance, 70 patients undergoing hip fracture surgery under SA in a tertiary-care hospital were recruited and randomized to receive either ultrasound-guided PENG block or FNB with 20 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine before performing SA. We compared pain severity using the visual analog scale (VAS) 15 and 30 minutes after the block and during positioning. The sitting angle, requirement of rescue analgesia for positioning, and anesthesiologist and patient satisfaction scores were also analyzed. Continuous data were analyzed with an unpaired t-test while the chi-square test was used for categorical data.

resultsThere was a significant reduction in VAS scores after PENG block (PENG: 0.66 ± 1.05 and FNB: 1.94 ± 1.90; p = 0.001) with lesser requirement of rescue analgesia for positioning compared to FNB. The anesthesiologist and patient satisfaction scores were also significantly better in the PENG group.

conclusionPENG block offers better analgesia for positioning before SA than FNB without any significant side effects, and improves patient and anesthesiologist satisfaction, thus proving to be an effective analgesic alternative for painful hip fractures.

Indexed as

femoral nerve blockhip fracturespeng blockperioperative analgesiapositional painspinal anesthesiaultrasound-guided nerve block

Identifiers

PMID38623129
PMCPMC11017796
OpenAlexW4392879967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.