A Comparison of Pediatric Forearm Fracture Reduction Between Conscious Sedation and General Anesthesia

OBJECTIVES:The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of children whose fractures were manipulated with nitrous oxide with those fractures manipulated under a general anesthetic. DESIGN:We undertook a retrospective analysis of all children who presented to the emergency department with an...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of orthopaedic trauma 2012-09, Vol.26 (9), p.550-555
Hauptverfasser: McKenna, Paul, Leonard, Mike, Connolly, Paul, Boran, Sinead, McCormack, Damian
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:OBJECTIVES:The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of children whose fractures were manipulated with nitrous oxide with those fractures manipulated under a general anesthetic. DESIGN:We undertook a retrospective analysis of all children who presented to the emergency department with an angulated or displaced nonphyseal forearm fracture requiring manipulation over a 6-month period. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS:Twenty-eight forearm fractures were manipulated using conscious sedation, whereas 27 were manipulated in the operating theatre under general anesthesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS:The quality of reduction, the Cast Index, Padding Index, and Canterbury Index were similar between the 2 groups. RESULTS:There was a significant difference between the need for remanipulation in the nitrous oxide group (9) compared with the need for remanipulation in the theatre group (3). CONCLUSIONS:Despite a higher failure, manipulation of fractures in the emergency department using conscious sedation can achieve an adequate reduction and a high quality of cast. Failures were due to inherently more unstable fracture personalities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
ISSN:0890-5339
1531-2291
DOI:10.1097/BOT.0b013e3182454ff8