Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 13688

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2024 | Month : November | Volume : 18 | Issue : 11 | Page : UC13 - UC17 Full Version

Efficacy of Infrainguinal vs Suprainguinal Approach to Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Patients with Proximal Femoral Fracture: A Randomised Clinical Study


Published: November 1, 2024 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2024/74372.20292
K Jubairiya, PK Farha, Neera Valsan, Moona, Paul O Raphael, AJ Sukanya Prince Mary, P Anusree, SM Mohammed Nabeel

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Malabar Medical College and Research Centre, Calicut, Kerala, India. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Malabar Medical College and Research Centre, Calicut, Kerala, India. 3. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Malabar Medical College and Research Centre, Calicut, Kerala, India. 4. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Malabar Medical College and Research Centre, Calicut, Kerala, India. 5. Professor and Head, Department of Anaesthesiology, Malabar Medical College and Research Centre, Calicut, Kerala, India. 6. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Malabar Medical College and Research Centre, Calicut, Kerala, India. 7. Junior Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, Malabar Medical College and Research Centre, Calicut, Kerala, India. 8. Junior Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, Malabar Medical College and Research Centre, Calicut, Kerala, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Moona,
Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Malabar Medical College and Research Centre, Ulliyeri, Modakkallur, Calicut-673315, Kerala, India.
E-mail: moonakad@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: The Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block (FICB) has been useful in postoperative pain management for surgeries involving the hip joint and femur. Under ultrasound guidance, one can approach this compartment using either the conventional infrainguinal or suprainguinal methods. The suprainguinal approach was expected to be better due to the more proximal placement of the drug.

Aim: To compare the suprainguinal and infrainguinal approaches to FICB for postoperative analgesia in proximal femur fractures.

Materials and Methods: This unicentric prospective randomised double-blind clinical study was conducted over six months following approval from the ethics committee and in accordance with the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI/2022/12/048121). A total of 60 patients were randomly divided into two groups of 30 using computer-generated random numbers. FICB was performed in the preoperative area with either approach under ultrasound guidance depending on the assigned group. Surgery was performed under a subarachnoid block after 30 minutes. Postoperative pain was assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score. If the VAS score was greater than 4, rescue analgesia was administered with intravenous paracetamol 1 gm infusion. The incidence of postoperative delirium was also recorded.

Results: The duration of postoperative analgesia was significantly longer in the suprainguinal group (Group S) (481.7±136.7 minutes) compared to the infrainguinal group (Group I) (385.2±99.39 minutes) (p-value=0.001). The VAS score was similar between the groups at 2, 6, and 12 hours. However, the VAS score was significantly lower in Group S (2.333±0.479) compared to Group I (2.867±1.196) at 24 hours. The incidence of postoperative delirium was comparable in both groups (p-value=0.754).

Conclusion: Regarding the duration of analgesia and reduced pain intensity at 24 hours, suprainguinal FICB was more effective than infrainguinal FICB in managing pain. There were no significant differences in overall paracetamol intake and the incidence of delirium between the two groups.

Keywords

Analgesia, Ropivacaine, Ultrasound

The most common site of fractures in elderly patients is the proximal femur (1). Perioperative pain management in these patients is a challenge for the anaesthesiologist. Severe pain may lead to postoperative delirium and delayed recovery (2). Multimodal analgesia has been used for postoperative pain management (3),(4). Studies have proven that peripheral nerve blocks offer better analgesia with fewer adverse effects than opioids and Non Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) in the geriatric population (5),(6). The lumbar plexus descends into the pelvis, where the femoral nerve, lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, and obturator nerve meet in a small compartment just below the fascia iliaca. These nerves branch and diverge from one another as they descend towards the inguinal region. Therefore, drug distribution well above the inguinal ligament is preferred to reach these nerves with a single injection of the local anaesthetic (7). The fascia iliaca compartment can be approached under ultrasound guidance with the conventional infrainguinal approach or the suprainguinal approach. The suprainguinal approach would enable the local anaesthetic to block the lumbar plexus at a level higher than the infrainguinal approach, thereby blocking the ilioinguinal, iliohypogastric, and genitofemoral nerves that originate from the L1 and L2 anterior rami. This higher-level approach is expected to provide better analgesia compared to the conventional infrainguinal approach (8).

There is a dearth of studies looking at the comparison between the conventional infrainguinal approach and the suprainguinal approach for postoperative analgesia, comparing the duration of analgesia and the incidence of postoperative delirium. The few studies that compared these two approaches looked at the use of postoperative morphine or tramadol as rescue analgesia (8),(9). The use of other analgesics, including paracetamol, as rescue analgesia has not been studied in detail in any of these trials. Thus, the present study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two distinct approaches for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing proximal femoral fracture reduction under subarachnoid block. This study also compared the dose of paracetamol used as rescue analgesia and the incidence of delirium in both approaches. Although the suprainguinal approach was theoretically superior, there was insufficient clinical evidence to support this theory (9). This study hypothesised that suprainguinal FICB would be more effective than infrainguinal FICB in providing postoperative analgesia.

Material and Methods

The randomised double-blind clinical trial was conducted at Malabar Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, a tertiary care hospital in Calicut, Kerala, India from November 2023 to April 2024. The study was initiated after obtaining the approval of the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) (MMCH&RC/IEC/2022/10/61) and registering in the CTRI (CTRI/2022/12/048121). This study was conducted as per the Helsinki II declaration and reported following the CONSORT 2010 guidelines.

Inclusion criteria: A total of 60 patients with American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical statuses I, II, and III with proximal femoral fractures undergoing surgical reduction under subarachnoid block were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients with a history of hepatic or renal diseases, allergy to local anaesthetics, and a history of bleeding diathesis were excluded from the study.

Sample size: The sample size was calculated from a previously published study by Fujihara Y et al., using the mean and standard deviation of the VAS score at different time intervals with 90% power and a 1% level of significance (6). The minimum sample size calculated was 28 per group. The group size of 30 was determined by power analysis based on standard deviation data from previously published reports (6).

Study Procedure

Patients were randomly divided into two groups (group I-Infrainguinal group and group S-Suprainguinal group) by a computer-generated table of random numbers. An anaesthesiologist, who was not directly involved in patient care, opened the envelope for dividing the groups. Postoperative pain scores and 24-hour paracetamol consumption were assessed by the duty anaesthesiologist (Table/Fig 1). A pre-anaesthetic check-up, a detailed medical history, and a systemic examination were done. After explaining in detail about the study, written informed consent was taken from patients and bystanders. All patients were educated preoperatively about the VAS for pain (0=no pain, 10=the worst pain).

On the day of surgery from the preoperative area, an intravenous line was secured with an 18 g cannula. Saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO2), blood pressure, and Electrocardiogram (ECG) monitors were attached. In the case of the infrainguinal group (group I), the linear transducer probe was placed transversely over the inguinal fold while the patient was supine. The femoral nerve and blood vessels were seen at a depth of 2-4 cm. On the other hand, the iliopsoas muscle and iliac fascia were identified. A 100 mm, 22G stimuplex needle was introduced through an in-plane technique (9). Upon needle penetration of the fascia, a sense of pop was elicited, and the fascia appeared to visually retract on the ultrasound image. After negative aspiration, 1-2 mL of local anaesthetic was injected, and the separation of the iliac fascia from the iliopsoas muscle with the medial extension of the local anaesthetic to the femoral nerve and laterally towards the iliac crest was observed. A total of 40 mL of ropivacaine 0.2% was injected.

In the suprainguinal group (group S), after positioning the patient supine, a linear ultrasound probe was placed in the sagittal plane over the inguinal ligament to obtain an image of the Anterior Superior Iliac Spine (ASIS). The probe was slid medially to identify the “bow tie sign” formed by the internal oblique medially and sartorius laterally. A 100 mm 22 G stimuplex needle was introduced through the in-plane technique. The fascia iliaca was penetrated and hydro dissected, separating it from the iliacus muscle (9). Since the deep circumflex artery lies superficial to the iliac fascia, upward movement of this artery after injection was used as an indicator of successful penetration of the iliac fascia. A total of 40 mL of 0.2% ropivacaine was injected.

After 30 minutes, the patient was shifted to the operating room. Subarachnoid block was given with 2.4 mL of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Spinal block was assessed by the motor (modified Bromage score) and sensory examination. The severity of postoperative pain was measured and recorded using a 10 cm VAS at intervals of 2, 6, 12, and 24 hours. If the VAS score was more than 4, rescue analgesia was given. An injection of paracetamol, 1 gm was given as intravenous infusion for 10 to 15 minutes (9). Duration of analgesia was taken as the first request for analgesia from the time of nerve block. The total amount of intravenous paracetamol given was also recorded.

Patients were closely observed postoperatively for 24 hours for delirium and other complications. Delirium was diagnosed by the Confusion Assessment Method (10) using the following criteria: (a) acute onset and fluctuating course; (b) inattention; (c) disorganised thinking; and (d) altered level of consciousness (11). The presence of the above features was used to score delirium, which was subsequently managed by standard institutional protocols. All assessments were conducted by the duty consultants, who were not involved in the patient’s management in the operating theatre and were blind to the patient’s group assignment. The principal investigator collected the data. All gathered data was subjected to appropriate statistical analysis.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was carried out by using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0. Qualitative (categorical) variables were represented by frequency and percentage. To depict quantitative variables, mean and standard deviation were utilised. Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was performed to compare qualitative variables between the groups. Independent sample t-test/Mann-Whitney test was performed to compare quantitative variables between the groups. A p-value <0.05 was taken as statistically significant.

Results

The study data analysis was conducted on 60 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Ultrasound-guided FICB and subarachnoid block were successful in all patients. The demographic data of the patients were comparable in terms of age, sex, and ASA status in both groups (Table/Fig 2).

The duration of analgesia was significantly higher in group S compared to group I with a p-value of 0.001 (Table/Fig 3). Based on VAS scores at 2,6,12 and 24 hours, it was found that the suprainguinal group reported significantly less pain (2.333±0.479) at 24 hours than the infrainguinal group (2.867±1.196), with a p-value of 0.047 [Table/Fig-4,5]. The requirement for rescue analgesia over 24 hours was comparable in both groups. In the suprainguinal group, 15 (50.0%) patients received two doses and 15 (50.0%) patients received three doses of paracetamol, while in the infrainguinal group, it was 11 (36.7%) patients and 19 (63.3%) patients, respectively (p=0.297) (Table/Fig 6).

The incidence of preoperative delirium was comparable (p-value =0.781) in the two groups. The incidence of postoperative delirium was lower than the preoperative value, but there was no significant difference (p-value=0.754) between the two groups (Table/Fig 7).

Discussion

In the current study conducted among 60 participants, it was found that the duration of analgesia was significantly higher among the subjects who received postoperative analgesia for proximal femur fractures through the suprainguinal approach (481.7±136.7 minutes) compared to the infrainguinal approach (385.2±99.39 minutes).

Gupta M and Kamath SS, provided a comparable result where they compared ultrasound-guided infrainguinal FICB with that of the Femoral Nerve Block (FNB) in cases of proximal femoral fracture. The analgesia sustained about 7.1±2.1 hours in the FICB group compared to 5.2±0.7 hours in the FNB group (12). Kumar K et al., showed that the time to the first Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA) morphine was 356.28±33.32 minutes in the suprainguinal group, while it was 291.48±37.17 minutes in the infrainguinal group (13). However, Bansal K et al., compared the two methods in above knee procedures and found that the infrainguinal group’s time of the first analgesic request (5.63±3.9 hours) was more compared to the suprainguinal group (4.63±4.0 hours), but the difference was not statistically significant (9).

The VAS score was similar between the groups at 2, 6, and 12 hours. The VAS score at 24 hours was significantly less (2.333±0.479) in the suprainguinal group compared to the infrainguinal group (2.867±1.196). Kumar K et al., found a significant reduction in the suprainguinal group’s VAS score at six hours. However, the VAS score remained unchanged within the 12- and 24-hour periods (13). A statistically significant difference in the VAS score at 12 and 20 hours was observed between the suprainguinal group and the infrainguinal group by Bansal K et al., (9).

In the present study, 2 and 3 doses of paracetamol were given to 50.0% each in the suprainguinal group, while in the infrainguinal group it was 36.7% and 63.3%, respectively. Even though paracetamol consumption was less in the suprainguinal group, the difference was not statistically significant. In the Kumar K et al., study, postoperative morphine consumption was significantly less in the suprainguinal group, and Bansal K et al., found that total tramadol consumption in the first 24 hours was reduced to 77.1% in the suprainguinal group and 54.2% in the infrainguinal group (9),(13).

In the present study, 33.3% of patients in the infrainguinal and 30% of patients in the suprainguinal group had preoperative delirium. This may be because most of the patients in this study were above 65 years old. Additionally, 36.7% of patients in the infrainguinal group and 33.3% in the suprainguinal group belonged to ASA grade III (severe systemic diseases) and may be on multiple medications. The severe pain associated with these fractures can also contribute to preoperative delirium. When considering the incidence of postoperative delirium, 23.3% of patients in the infrainguinal group and 20% of patients in the suprainguinal group had delirium. Even though the incidence was less than the preoperative value in either group, it was not statistically significant.

Wennberg P et al., examined the impact of FICB on postoperative delirium in patients with hip fractures and found that the procedure did not affect the patient’s cognitive status (14). Steenberg J et al., also found insufficient evidence of the relationship between FICB and the incidence of delirium in hip fracture patients (15). Similarly, Zhang J et al., demonstrated that FICB can reduce the development of postoperative delirium in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (16). None of the studies compared the incidence of postoperative delirium in the suprainguinal and infrainguinal groups.

Weinstein SM et al., found that regional anaesthesia decreases the incidence of delirium compared to general anaesthesia, and the use of intraoperative opioids increases the incidence of delirium (17). However, Sica R et al., found that uncontrolled pain may be a more crucial factor for postoperative delirium than opioid consumption, particularly among patients who are opioid tolerant (18). Paracetamol, being a cyclooxygenase inhibitor, reduces cognitive impairment through its antioxidant activity (19). Subramanian B et al., showed a decrease in the occurrence of delirium in patients who received paracetamol compared to placebo after cardiac surgery (20). Hence, using a multimodal opioid-sparing analgesia regime may be an optimal option to reduce postoperative delirium.

The severe pain associated with proximal femoral fractures may lead to perioperative delirium, chronic pain, and delay in the postoperative recovery process. Managing the pain perioperatively among patients with senility and multiple co-morbidities is a challenge for the anaesthesiologist. The lumbar plexus block is thought to be an efficient technique for regional anaesthesia. Nonetheless, patients who have a proximal femoral fracture may find it difficult to be positioned for this block. The lumbar plexus can be approached anteriorly by FICB, which was initially described by Dalen in 1989 (21). For surgical procedures involving the femur and hip joint, it remains a commonly used regional anaesthetic technique (22). With the advent of ultrasound, an infrainguinal approach can be done under direct visualisation.

The ultrasound-guided suprainguinal fascia iliaca block, first introduced by Hebbard, involves inserting a needle about 2-4 cm below the inguinal ligament and directing it towards the fascia iliaca located above the inguinal ligament. Desmet M et al., used a more proximal needle insertion site above the inguinal ligament and injected the drug after observing the “bowtie” appearance of the muscles (23). Vermeylen K et al., did further studies on the amount of drug volume needed for the successful blockade of all three nerves. It showed the requirement of 40 mL of the drug for effective blocking of three nerves (24). Zhang FF et al., studied the safety of different concentrations of ropivacaine in elderly patients receiving a fascia iliaca block and suggested a lower concentration may be a safer option for a single large volume of FICB (25).

These findings demonstrate that FICB provides effective analgesia, reducing the occurrence of cognitive impairment. The fracture fixation was done under spinal anaesthesia. For rescue analgesia, paracetamol alone was used and did not use any opioids throughout the preoperative or postoperative period.

Limitation(s)

The investigation of the pain score on mobilisation was not done. This was a unicentric trial, and hence further multicentric trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Conclusion

The analgesic efficacy of the suprainguinal FICB surpasses that of the infrainguinal fascia iliaca block, exhibiting longer-lasting pain relief and diminished pain intensity at 24 hours. No notable distinction was observed in total paracetamol consumption and incidence of delirium.

References

1.
Maffulli N, Aicale R. Proximal femoral fractures in the elderly: A few things to know, and some to forget. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022;58(10):1314. [crossref][PubMed]
2.
Buchan TA, Sadeghirad B, Schmutz N, Goettel N, Foroutan F, Couban R, et al. Preoperative prognostic factors associated with postoperative delirium in older people undergoing surgery: Protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2020;9(1):261. [crossref][PubMed]
3.
Beverly A, Kaye AD, Ljungqvist O, Urman RD. Essential elements of multimodal analgesia in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines. Anaesthesiol Clin. 2017;35(2):e115-43. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
Sarkies MN, Testa L, Carrigan A, Roberts N, Gray R, Sherrington C, et al. Perioperative interventions to improve early mobilisation and physical function after hip fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing. 2023;52(8):afad154. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Gottlieb M, Long B. Peripheral nerve block for hip fracture. Acad Emerg Med. 2021;28(10):1198-99. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Fujihara Y, Fukunishi S, Nishio S, Miura J, Koyanagi S, Yoshiya S. Fascia iliaca compartment block: Its efficacy in pain control for patients with proximal femoral fracture. J Orthop Sci. 2013;18(5):793-97. [crossref][PubMed]
7.
Wang YL, Liu YQ, Ni H, Zhang XL, Ding L, Tong F, et al. Ultrasound-guided, direct suprainguinal injection for fascia iliaca block for total hip arthroplasty: A retrospective study. World J Clin Cases. 2021;9(15):3567-75. [crossref][PubMed]
8.
Stevens M, Harrison G, McGrail M. A modified fascia iliaca compartment block has significant morphine-sparing effect after total hip arthroplasty. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2007;35(6):949-52. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Bansal K, Sharma N, Singh MR, Sharma A, Roy R, Sethi S. Comparison of suprainguinal approach with infrainguinal approach of fascia iliaca compartment block for postoperative analgesia. Indian J Anaesth. 2022;66(Suppl 6):S294-99. [crossref][PubMed]
10.
Green JR, Smith J, Teale E, Collinson M, Avidan MS, Schmitt EM, et al. Use of the confusion assessment method in multicentre delirium trials: Training and standardisation. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):107. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Aldwikat RK, Manias E, Tomlinson E, Amin M, Nicholson P. Delirium screening tools in the post-anaesthetic care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2022;34(6):1225-35. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
Gupta M, Kamath SS. Comparison of preoperative ultrasound guided fascia iliaca block versus femoral nerve block for proximal femur fractures before positioning for spinal anaesthesia: An observational study. Korean J Pain. 2020;33(2):138-43. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Kumar K, Pandey RK, Bhalla AP, Kashyap L, Garg R, Darlong V, et al. Comparison of conventional infrainguinal versus modified proximal suprainguinal approach of fascia iliaca compartment block for postoperative analgesia in total hip arthroplasty. A prospective randomised study. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 2015;66(3):95-100.
14.
Wennberg P, Möller M, Herlitz J, Kenne Sarenmalm E. Fascia iliaca compartment block as a preoperative analgesic in elderly patients with hip fractures- effects on cognition. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):252. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Steenberg J, Møller AM. Systematic review of the effects of fascia iliaca compartment block on hip fracture patients before operation. Br J Anaesth. 2018;120(6):1368-80. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Zhang J, Niu G, Wang X, Li W. Effect of fascia iliaca compartment block on postoperative delirium in elderly patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Chinese Journal of Anaesthesiology. 2020;12:655-59.
17.
Weinstein SM, Poultsides L, Baaklini LR, Mörwald EE, Cozowicz C, Saleh JN, et al. Postoperative delirium in total knee and hip arthroplasty patients: A study of perioperative modifiable risk factors. Br J Anaesth. 2018;120(5):999-1008. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
Sica R, Wilson JM, Kim EJ, Culley DJ, Meints SM, Schreiber KL. The relationship of postoperative pain and opioid consumption to postoperative delirium after spine surgery. J Pain Res. 2023;16:287-94. [crossref][PubMed]
19.
Lalert L, Maneesri le-Grand S, Techarang T, Huntula S, Punsawad C. Neuroprotective effect of low-dose paracetamol treatment against cognitive dysfunction in d-galactose-induced aging mice. Heliyon. 2022;8(10):e11108. [crossref][PubMed]
20.
Subramaniam B, Shankar P, Shaefi S, Mueller A, O’Gara B, Banner-Goodspeed V, et al. Effect of intravenous acetaminophen vs placebo combined with propofol or dexmedetomidine on postoperative delirium among older patients following cardiac surgery: The DEXACET randomised clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;321(7):686-96. [crossref][PubMed]
21.
Dalens B, Vanneuville G, Tanguy A. Comparison of the fascia iliaca compartment block with the 3-in-1 block in children. Anaesth Analg. 1989;69(6):705-13. [crossref]
22.
Kacha NJ, Jadeja CA, Patel PJ, Chaudhari HB, Jivani JR, Pithadia VS. Comparative study for evaluating efficacy of fascia iliaca compartment block for alleviating pain of positioning for spinal anaesthesia in patients with hip and proximal femur fractures. Indian J Orthop. 2018;52(2):147-53. [crossref][PubMed]
23.
Desmet M, Vermeylen K, Van Herreweghe I, Carlier L, Soetens F, Lambrecht S, et al. A longitudinal supra-inguinal fascia iliaca compartment block reduces morphine consumption after total hip arthroplasty. Reg Anaesth Pain Med. 2017;42(3):327-33. [crossref][PubMed]
24.
Vermeylen K, Soetens F, Leunen I, Hadzic A, Van Boxtael S, Pomés J, et al. The effect of the volume of supra-inguinal injected solution on the spread of the injectate under the fascia iliaca: A preliminary study. J Anaesth. 2018;32(6):908-13. [crossref][PubMed]
25.
Zhang FF, Lv C, Yang LY, Wang SP, Zhang M, Guo XW. Pharmacokinetics of ropivacaine in elderly patients receiving fascia iliaca compartment block. Exp Ther Med. 2019;18(4):2648-52.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/74372.20292

Date of Submission: Jul 19, 2024
Date of Peer Review: Aug 24, 2024
Date of Acceptance: Oct 11, 2024
Date of Publishing: Nov 01, 2024

AUTHOR DECLARATION :
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jul 20, 2024
• Manual Googling: Aug 23, 2024
• iThenticate Software: Oct 10, 2024 (14%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 6

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com