Abstract: We included one randomised trial of 55 children aged between 16 months to 15 years. It compared anatomically-guided FICB versus systemic analgesia with intravenous morphine sulphate. The small sample size and the high risk of bias relating to lack of blinding resulted in a low quality rating for all outcomes. Overall, the trial provided low quality evidence for better pain management in the FICB group. Fewer children in the FICB group had analgesia failure at 30 minutes than in the morphine group (2/26 (8%) versus 8/28 (29%); risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 1.20; P value 0.09). The trial did not report on pain during procedures or transfers, or application of analgesia. The trial provided low quality evidence that FICB has a better safety profile than morphine, with only four (15%) reports of redness and pain at the injection site, and no reports of the type of adverse effects of systematic analgesia that occurred in the morphine group, such as respiratory depression (six cases (21%)) and vomiting (four cases (14%)). No long-term adverse events were reported for either intervention. Clinically significant pain relief was achieved in both groups at five minutes; with limited evidence of greater initial pain relief in the FICB group. Based on an inspection of graphically-presented data, at least 46% (12/26) of children in the FICB group had no supplementary medication (mainly analgesia) for the six hours of the study, while only 5% (1 or 2/28) of children in the intravenous morphine group went without additional analgesia. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether child or parental satisfaction with the method of analgesia favoured either method. Resource use was not measured. Low quality evidence from one small trial suggests that FICB provides better and longer lasting pain relief with fewer adverse events than intravenous opioids for femur fractures in children. Well conducted and reported randomised trials that compare nerve blocks (both FNB and FICB) with systemic analgesia and that use validated pain scores are needed.

Plain-language summary: We searched several medical databases and trial registries up to January 2013 and contacted researchers. We found one study that looked at the comparison we were interested in. This study was potentially biased, mainly because the care providers, parents and children were aware of the type of pain relief the children received. The study was small, involving 55 children aged 16 months to 15 years, and showed that the children who received one of the two main types of nerve block tended to have less pain after 30 minutes than those who received intravenous morphine for initial pain control. The nerve blocks led to some pain and redness at the injection site in a few cases, while intravenous morphine caused more serious problems such as depressed breathing (lack of oxygen), excessive sleepiness and vomiting in a small number of children. Moreover, children who had nerve blocks continued to have lower pain scores over a six-hour period with less need for additional pain relief. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether children or parents were more satisfied with one method of pain relief than the other. Use of resources (e.g. nursing time, cost of medications) was not measured. The quality of the study included in this review was low and so these conclusions are not certain. Further well designed studies investigating whether nerve blocks are more effective and safer than other means of pain relief are needed.