The 18 included studies involved at least 1200, mainly female and older, patients with fractures of the distal radius. All studies had serious methodological limitations, notably in the frequent failure to assess clinically important and longer-term outcomes.
Five trials provided evidence that, when compared with haematoma block, IVRA provided better analgesia during fracture manipulation and enabled better and easier reduction of the fracture, with some indication of a reduced risk of later redislocation or need for re-reduction. In contrast, haematoma block was quicker and easier to perform and less resource intensive.
There was inadequate evidence of the relative effectiveness of different methods of anaesthesia from the following comparisons, all examined within single trials only: nerve block versus haematoma block; intravenous sedation versus haematoma block; general anaesthesia versus haematoma block; general anaesthesia versus sedation; and general anaesthesia versus haematoma block and sedation.
None of the three trials evaluating three different physical aspects of anaesthesia (injection site of, or extra tourniquet, for IVRA; and technique for brachial plexus block) provided conclusive evidence for the effectiveness and safety of the novel technique.
Six trials examined the use of drug adjuncts. The addition of two different muscle relaxants and one analgesic was tested for IVRA; one sedative and hyaluronidase for haematoma block; and clonidine for brachial plexus block. All trials evaluating adjuncts failed to provide evidence on eventual clinical outcome.
A seriously flawed study comparing bupivacaine with prilocaine for IVRA gave some insight on the potential confounding effects of treatment by different doctors on patient outcome.
