Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Comparison of analgesic effect of pericapsular nerve group block and supra-inguinal fascia iliaca compartment block on dynamic pain in patients with hip fractures: a randomized controlled trial
  1. Won Uk Koh1,
  2. Hyungtae Kim1,
  3. Yeon Ju Kim1,
  4. Ji In Park2,
  5. Hyun-Jin Yeo1,
  6. Young-Jin Ro1 and
  7. Ha-Jung Kim1
  1. 1Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
  2. 2Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ha-Jung Kim, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Songpa-gu 05505, Korea; alexakim06{at}


Background Patients with hip fracture often experience severe pain, particularly during movement or slight positional change, prior to the occurrence of surgery. It is essential to explore the appropriate analgesic methods before surgery in patients with hip fracture, especially those capable of alleviating dynamic pain. Pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block was introduced as a useful technique for hip analgesia. In this study, we aimed to compare the reduction in dynamic pain between the PENG block and supra-inguinal fascia iliaca compartment block (SIFICB).

Methods This prospective trial included 80 hip fracture patients aged ≥19 years, with an American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status of 1–4 and a baseline dynamic pain score ≥4 on the numerical rating scale. The patients were randomly allocated into the PENG block (n=40) and SIFICB group (n=40). For the PENG block and SIFICB, 20 mL and 30 mL of 0.3% ropivacaine was used, respectively. The primary outcome was reduction in dynamic pain scores at 30 min following the peripheral nerve block. Dynamic pain score was evaluated when the leg was passively raised.

Results A total of 79 patients were included in the final analysis, and the reductions in pain score during hip flexion were 3.1±2.4 and 2.9±2.5 in the PENG block and SIFICB groups, respectively, which was statistically insignificant (p=0.75). Moreover, no significant differences were observed in any of the outcomes.

Conclusions PENG block and SIFICB could effectively provide analgesia for dynamic pain in patients with hip fractures, with no significant difference between the two groups.

Trial registration number NCT04677348.

  • analgesia
  • Nerve Block
  • Pain Management
  • Ultrasonography
  • Lower Extremity

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

View Full Text


  • WUK and HK contributed equally.

  • Contributors WUK, HK: conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, writing–original draft, and writing–review and editing; YJK, JIP: data curation and investigation; H-JY: data curation; Y-JR: investigation and supervision; H-JK: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing, and responsible for the overall content as the guarantor.

  • Funding Support was provided solely from institutional and departmental sources.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.