Intravenous regional anesthesia administered by the operating plastic surgeon: is it safe and efficient? Experience of a medical center

Manipulation of distal radius fractures: a comparison of Bier's block vs haematoma block

INTRODUCTION

Displaced distal radius fractures often require manipulation under anaesthesia. Many anaesthetic techniques are described, with the two most commonly used being Bier's block (BB) and haematoma block (HB). Despite national guidance preferring a BB, an HB is often performed instead. This study aims to compare the analgesic properties of a BB with those of an HB when manipulating distal radius fractures.

METHODS

This is an observational cohort study comparing the management of displaced distal radius fractures requiring reduction across two National Health Service trusts. Patients aged over 18 with isolated, displaced distal radius fractures were recruited. Patient demographics, AO fracture classification and grade of clinician performing the procedure were recorded. A numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score was obtained for each patient after manipulation. The quality of reduction was judged against standardised anatomical parameters.

RESULTS

Some 200 patients were recruited (100 HB, 100 BB). There were no differences in age (BB: median 66.5 years, interquartile range [IQR] 55-74; HB: median 67 years, IQR 55-74; p = 0.79) or fracture characteristics (p = 0.29) between cohorts. Patients undergoing BB had significantly lower pain scores with a lower IQR than those undergoing HB (p < 0.005). Patients undergoing BB manipulation were more likely to have the fracture reduced and normal anatomy restored (p < 0.005). BBs were performed mainly by Foundation Year 2 junior doctors, whereas HB manipulations were performed by a range of clinicians from emergency nurse practitioners to consultants.

CONCLUSIONS

BB provides better analgesia than an HB. This can be performed successfully and reliably by Senior House Officer-level junior doctors.

Intravenous Regional Anesthesia: A Historical Overview and Clinical Review

Intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) is an established, safe and simple technique, being applicable for various surgeries on the upper and lower limbs. In 1908, IVRA was first described by the Berlin surgeon August Bier, hence the name "Bier's Block". Although his technique was effective, it was cumbersome and fell into disuse when neuroaxial and percutaneous plexus blockades gained widespread popularity in the early 20^th century. In the 1960s, it became widespread, when the New Zealand anesthesiologist Charles McKinnon Holmes praised its use by means of new available local anesthetics. Today, IVRA is still popular in many countries being used in the emergency room, for outpatients and for high-risk patients with contraindications for general anesthesia. IVRA offers a favorable risk-benefit ratio, cost-effectiveness, sufficient muscle relaxation and a fast on- and offset. New upcoming methods for monitoring, specialized personnel and improved emergency equipment made IVRA even safer. Moreover, IVRA may be applied to treat complex regional pain syndromes. Prilocaine and lidocaine are considered as first-choice local anesthetics for IVRA. Also, various adjuvant drugs have been tested to augment the effect of IVRA, and to reduce post-deflation tourniquet pain. Since major adverse events are rare in IVRA, it is regarded as a very safe technique. Nevertheless, systemic neuro- and cardiotoxic side effects may be linked to an uncontrolled systemic flush-in of local anesthetics and must be avoided. This review gives a historical overview of more than 100 years of experience with IVRA and provides a current view of IVRA with relevant key facts for the daily clinical routine.