ArticleBMC anesthesiology2026
Attitudes of anesthesiologists towards implementation of PENG block in non-operative treatment of hip fractures in the Netherlands: a national survey study.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEffective pain management in frail patients with hip fractures who are not candidates for surgery remains challenging. The pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block with phenol has been proposed as a minimally invasive option in this context. However, its integration into palliative care pathways is not well established. This study evaluated how Dutch anesthesiologists perceive the PENG block with phenol for non-operative pain management and explored the current state of its implementation.
methodsWe conducted a national cross-sectional survey among all registered anesthesiologist-pain specialists in the Netherlands (N = 192). The survey assessed perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation, categorized at the system, staff, and intervention levels. Secondary outcomes included perceptions of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness.
resultsSixty anesthesiologists completed the survey (adjusted response rate 31%), of whom 88% reported prior experience with the PENG block using phenol. Reported barriers included uncertainty about long-term efficacy (57%), logistical constraints (48%), and limited training opportunities (35%). Facilitators were the availability of clear protocols (55%) and an expanding evidence base (50%). Respondents largely considered the block technically straightforward and clinically appropriate, particularly for femoral neck fractures. Nevertheless, feasibility concerns were highlighted regarding referral pathways and interdepartmental collaboration.
conclusionsDutch anesthesiologists widely accept the PENG block with phenol as an appropriate option for pain management in selected frail patients with hip fractures in the non-operative setting. Implementation is currently constrained by evidence gaps, logistical barriers, and institutional variability. Targeted staff-, intervention-, and system-level strategies may facilitate broader adoption, including structured residency training, institutional protocols with patient education tools, and interdisciplinary collaboration across relevant specialties. Further evidence and national guideline development are needed to facilitate standardized practice and international implementation.
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.