首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Pain Research >Comparative effectiveness analysis of two regional analgesia techniques for the pain management of isolated multiple rib fractures
【2h】

Comparative effectiveness analysis of two regional analgesia techniques for the pain management of isolated multiple rib fractures

机译:两种局部镇痛技术对孤立性多发肋骨骨折疼痛处理的比较效果分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Background: Catheter-based regional analgesia has been proposed as an alternative to systemic analgesia for patients with multiple rib fractures (MRF). This study sought to compare the efficacy of regional techniques for decreasing pain and improving clinical outcomes.>Study design: This was a multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study of adult (≥18 years) patients admitted to four nonacademic trauma centers over two years (from 07/1/2014 to 06/30/2016). Study inclusion was MRF (≥3 fractures) with no other severe injuries. Two primary regional analgesia techniques were utilized and compared: continuous intercostal nerve blocks (CINB) and epidural (EPI) analgesia. The primary outcome, average pain scores on treatment, was examined using a repeated measures, linear regression mixed model. Secondary outcomes included hospital LOS, ICU LOS, ICU admission and hospital readmission, pulmonary complications, and incentive spirometry volumes during treatment, and were examined with univariate statistics.>Results: There were 339 patients with isolated MRF; 85 (25%) required regional analgesia (CINB, n=41; EPI, n=44) and the remaining 75% received systemic analgesia only (IV, n=195; PO, n=59). There were demographic and clinical differences between regional analgesia and systemic analgesia groups; on the contrary, there were no demographic or clinical differences between the CINB and EPI groups. Adjusted pain scores were similar for the EPI and CINB groups (4.0 vs 4.4, p=0.49). Secondary outcomes were worse in the EPI group compared to the CINB group: less improvement in incentive spirometry volume (p=0.004), longer ICU LOS (p=0.03), longer hospital LOS (p<0.001), and more ICU admission (p<0.001).>Conclusion: In patients requiring regional analgesia, pain management was equivalent with CINB and EPI, but CINB was associated with significantly better clinical outcomes. CINB might offer an efficient alternative for pain control in patients with MRF.
机译:>背景:对于多发肋骨骨折(MRF)的患者,已经提出了基于导管的区域镇痛作为全身性镇痛的替代方法。这项研究旨在比较区域性技术减轻疼痛和改善临床结果的功效。>研究设计:这是一项针对多名非学术性成年人(≥18岁)的多机构,回顾性队列研究。创伤中心长达两年(从2014年7月1日到2016年6月30日)。研究纳入的是MRF(≥3骨折),没有其他严重伤害。使用和比较了两种主要的区域镇痛技术:连续肋间神经阻滞(CINB)和硬膜外(EPI)镇痛。使用重复测量,线性回归混合模型检查主要结局,即治疗时的平均疼痛评分。次要结局指标包括住院LOS,ICU LOS,ICU入院和再次入院,肺部并发症以及治疗期间的激励肺活量,并用单因素统计数据进行检查。>结果:有339例孤立的MRF患者; 85(25%)位患者需要局部镇痛(CINB,n = 41; EPI,n = 44),其余75​​%仅接受全身镇痛(IV,n = 195; PO,n = 59)。局部镇痛组和全身镇痛组之间在人口统计学和临床​​上存在差异。相反,CINB和EPI组之间在人口统计学或临床上没有差异。 EPI和CINB组的调整后疼痛评分相似(4.0对4.4,p = 0.49)。与CINB组相比,EPI组的次要结局更差:激励肺活量的改善较少(p = 0.004),ICU LOS较长(p = 0.03),住院LOS较长(p <0.001)和ICU入院更多(p <0.001)。>结论:在需要局部镇痛的患者中,疼痛处理与CINB和EPI等效,但是CINB与明显更好的临床结局相关。 CINB可能为MRF患者的疼痛控制提供有效的替代方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号