Trial reportUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2025
Comparison of hematoma block and dexmedetomidine for reduction of distal radius fractures in the emergency department: a prospective randomized controlled study.
Trial report in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ultrasound-Guided Supracondylar Radial Nerve Block Versus Hematoma Block for Closed Reductions of Distal Radius Fracture in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the effects of hematoma block (HB) and dexmedetomidine administration on pain control, reduction quality, and physician satisfaction during the reduction of distal radius fractures (DRFs) in the emergency department (ED).
methodsA total of 60 patients presenting to the ED with DRFs were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: one received HB, while the other underwent conscious sedation with dexmedetomidine. Pain levels were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at three time points: before the procedure, 10 minutes after administration of the intervention, and post-reduction. Physician satisfaction during reduction was measured using the 5-point Likert Satisfaction Scale (LSS). Post-reduction quality was evaluated on control radiographs using the Sarmiento criteria.
resultsAmong the patients included in the study, 28 were female, 19 were male, and 13 were children (<12 years). The mean age was 32.97+-20.48 years in the dexmedetomidine group (DG) and 35.25+-18.92 years in the hematoma block group (HBG), with no statistically significant difference between the groups (t=-0.448, p=0.65). There was no significant difference in physician satisfaction during reduction between the two groups according to LSS results (χ²=2.296, p=0.512). Pre-procedure VAS scores were comparable between the two groups (t=-0.148, p=0.883). However, VAS scores 10 minutes after the intervention were significantly lower in the DG compared to the HBG (p=0.009, t=-2.773). Post-reduction quality based on the Sarmiento criteria showed no significant difference between the groups (χ²=0.64, p=0.89). No adverse effects related to either method were observed in any of the patients.
conclusionDexmedetomidine provides faster and more effective pain management than HB for DRF reduction in the ED. Given its minimal systemic side effects, dexmedetomidine may represent a viable alternative for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in fracture reductions requiring sedation in the ED.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.