Suppr超能文献

儿童桡骨远端骨折复位时血肿阻滞与镇静的比较

Hematoma block versus sedation for the reduction of distal radius fractures in children.

作者信息

Bear David M, Friel Nicole A, Lupo Charles L, Pitetti Raymond, Ward W Timothy

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA; Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA; Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.

出版信息

J Hand Surg Am. 2015 Jan;40(1):57-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.08.039. Epub 2014 Oct 11.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To determine which mode of anesthesia, hematoma block (HB) or procedural sedation (PS), was preferable for distal radius fracture (DRF) reduction in children.

METHODS

Fifty-two children (mean age, 12 y; range, 5-16 y) presenting with DRFs requiring reduction were prospectively enrolled and offered either PS or HB for anesthesia. Following reduction, families completed a satisfaction survey regarding mode of anesthesia and overall care (rated 0-10, with 10 being the best score) and an assessment of discomfort (rated 0-10, with 0 being no pain). Length of stay in the emergency department (ED) and complications related to procedure and method of anesthesia were recorded. Radiographic alignment was evaluated before and after reduction.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients underwent reduction with either PS or HB. Midazolam was used in addition to HB in 8 patients. One patient was converted from HB to PS due to inadequate block. There was no significant difference in prereduction and postreduction angulation between the groups, and reductions maintained satisfactory alignment. Overall satisfaction and satisfaction with anesthesia were excellent for both groups, with respective means of 9.5 and 9.5 for PS and 9.3 and 9.6 for HB. Patient discomfort was minimal in both groups, with a mean of 1.6 for PS and 2.2 for HB. Length of stay was significantly shorter for HB patients, with patients spending a mean of 2.2 hours less in the ED. Three patients required further intervention following initial reduction. One patient in each group required revision reduction, and 1 PS patient underwent closed reduction and pinning.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of HB for the reduction of pediatric DRFs provided radiographic alignment, patient satisfaction, and pain control comparable with that of PS, while significantly decreasing ED time and resources.

摘要

目的

确定哪种麻醉方式,即血肿阻滞(HB)或程序性镇静(PS),更适合儿童桡骨远端骨折(DRF)复位。

方法

前瞻性纳入52例需要复位的DRF患儿(平均年龄12岁;范围5 - 16岁),为其提供PS或HB麻醉。复位后,家属完成关于麻醉方式和整体护理的满意度调查(评分0 - 10分,10分为最高分)以及不适评估(评分0 - 10分,0分为无疼痛)。记录在急诊科(ED)的住院时间以及与手术和麻醉方法相关的并发症。复位前后评估影像学对线情况。

结果

26例患者接受了PS或HB复位。8例患者在HB基础上还使用了咪达唑仑。1例患者因阻滞不足从HB转换为PS。两组复位前和复位后的成角情况无显著差异,复位后对线保持良好。两组的总体满意度和麻醉满意度均极佳,PS组的均值分别为9.5和9.5,HB组为9.3和9.6。两组患者的不适程度均最小,PS组平均为1.6,HB组为2.2。HB组患者的住院时间显著缩短,在ED的停留时间平均少2.2小时。3例患者在初次复位后需要进一步干预。每组各有1例患者需要再次复位,1例PS组患者接受了闭合复位和克氏针固定。

结论

使用HB进行小儿DRF复位在影像学对线、患者满意度和疼痛控制方面与PS相当,同时显著减少了ED时间和资源。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验