Prehospital analgesia in suspected hip fracture patients: adherence to national prehospital pain management guidelines.

PURPOSE: Patients with hip fractures frequently present at the emergency department (ED). Despite high pain scores, prehospital pain management is often inadequate and insufficient. In the Netherlands, the emergency medical services (EMS) exhibit a high level of training, supported by a comprehensive pain treatment protocol. This study aimed to assess adherence to the protocol and hypothesized that prehospital pain management in hip fracture patients was both sufficient and adequate. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study of patients with suspected hip fractures. The median differences in numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores between the initial score in the ambulance and upon arrival at the ED were compared. Furthermore, adherence to the ambulance pain protocol was studied. RESULTS: From September 2016 to March 2021, 436 ambulance-transported hip fracture patients were included, of whom 81% received analgesics by EMS. The median initial pain score measured by EMS was 8; this number decreased to 5 at ED presentation, a significant decrease (ρ < 0.001). In case a prehospital NRS pain score was assessed, 66.5% of the patients were treated according to the protocol. In 80% of patients, the protocol was not followed correctly, primarily due to missing NRS pain scores. CONCLUSION: In suspected hip fracture patients, initial prehospital pain scores were high and most patients received analgesics from EMS. This resulted in a significant decrease in pain. In nearly 67% of patients in whom an NRS pain score was assessed in the prehospital phase, pain management was according to protocol. However, in 80% of the total population the pain protocol was not adhered to, mainly due to missing NRS pain scores.

Procedural sedation and analgesia versus nerve blocks for reduction of fractures and dislocations in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) and peripheral nerve blocks (NBs) are techniques to manage pain and facilitate reduction of dislocated joints or fractures. However, it is unclear if either approach provides any distinct advantage in the emergency department (ED). The aim of this systematic review is to compare these 2 techniques on pain scores, adverse events, patient satisfaction, and length of stay (LOS) in the ED. Methods: We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, and references were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PSA with NBs for orthopedic reductions in the ED were included. Outcomes of interest included pain scores, adverse events, patient satisfaction, and LOS in the ED. A total of 2 reviewers independently screened abstracts and extracted data into a standardized form. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to evaluate study quality. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty and strength of the evidence. Data on pain scores were pooled using a random-effects model and are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of 6 RCTs (n = 256) were included in a qualitative review, and 4 RCTs (n = 101) were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in pain scores between the PSA and NB groups (P = 0.47; SMD, 0.45; 95% CI, -0.78 to 1.69; I2 = 0.94). There were less adverse events in the NB group (0%-3.3%) compared with the PSA group (0%-20%; n = 256). LOS times were consistently shorter in the NB group (n = 215). Patient satisfaction was comparable in both groups (n = 196). Conclusion: Based on the available evidence, NBs performed by emergency physicians are as effective as PSA in managing pain during orthopedic reductions in the ED. NBs are associated with fewer adverse events and shorter LOS in the ED. The quality of evidence is low.

Salvage surgery for advanced stage head and neck squamous cell carcinoma following radiotherapy or chemoradiation.

PURPOSE: Salvage surgery for recurrent advanced stage head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is known to result in poor prognosis. As there are only small and heterogeneous studies available with wide variety in outcome measures, our purpose was to select and pool literature according to specific criteria. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcome after salvage surgery for recurrent advanced stage HNSCC following primary radiotherapy or chemoradiation. RESULTS: 16 of 3956 screened studies were included for analysis (729 patients). Pooled 5-year OS was 37% (95% CI 30-45%, 12 studies, 17 outcome measurements, 540 patients). Outcome was presented for larynx (6 studies, 397 patients), hypopharynx (2 studies, 47 patients), larynx and hypopharynx combined (3 studies, 69 patients) or separately (1 study, 134 patients), oral cavity (1 study, 11 patients), oropharynx (1 study, 34 patients) and multiple subsites combined (2 studies, 37 patients). There was no significant difference in survival outcome between subsites (pheterogeneity = 0.8116). The pooled tumor-positive resection margin rate was 32% and pooled re-operation rate 17%. Complication rates from the pooled data were: fistulas 33%, wound infections 24% and flap failure 3%. Treatment-related mortality rate was 1% and mean hospital stay was 23 days. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage surgery for recurrent advanced stage head and neck squamous cell carcinoma after primary (chemo)radiotherapy is a good last resort curative treatment option, resulting in 37% overall survival at 5 years. As data from advanced stage non-laryngeal tumors were sparse, no solid conclusions can be drawn with regard to outcome differences between tumor subsites.