Abstract
BackgroundForearm fractures are a common ED presentation. This study aimed to compare the resource utilisation of three anaesthetic techniques used for closed forearm fracture reduction in the ED: haematoma block (HB), Bier’s block (BB) and procedural sedation (PS).MethodsA retrospective multicentre cohort study was conducted of adult patients presenting to either Port Macquarie Base Hospital ED or Kempsey District Hospital ED in New South Wales, Australia, from January 2018 to June 2021. Patients requiring a closed reduction in the ED were included. ED length of stay (LOS) was compared using a likelihood ratio test. Successful reduction on the first attempt and the number of ED specialists present for each method were both modelled with a linear regression. Staff utilisation by the level of training, cost of consumables and complications for each group were presented as descriptive statistics.ResultsA total of 226 forearm fractures were included. 84 used HB, 35 BB and 107 PS. The mean ED LOS was lowest for HB (187.7 min) compared with BB (227.2 min) and PS (239.3 min) (p=0.023). The number of ED specialists required for PS was higher when compared with HB and BB (p=0.001). The cost of consumables and a total number of staff were considerably lower for HB compared with PS and BB methods. PS had the highest proportion of successful reductions on the first attempt (94.4%) compared with BB (88.6%) and HB (76.2%) (p=0.006). More patients experienced complications from PS (17.8%) compared with BB (14.3%) and HB (13.1%).ConclusionsIn this study, the HB method was the most efficient as it was associated with a shorter ED LOS, lower cost and staff resource utilisation. Although PS had a significantly greater proportion of successful reductions on the first attempt, HB had fewer complications than BB and PS. EDs with limited resources should consider using HB or BB as the initial technique for fracture reduction with PS used for failed HB or when regional blocks are contraindicated.