Efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided versus landmark-guided neuraxial puncture: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Clístenes Crístian de Carvalho, Willgney Porto Genuino, Maria Clara Vieira Morais, Heleno de Paiva Oliveira, Adolfo Igor Rodrigues, Kariem El-Boghdadly
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided versus landmark-guided neuraxial puncture: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials.","authors":"Clístenes Crístian de Carvalho, Willgney Porto Genuino, Maria Clara Vieira Morais, Heleno de Paiva Oliveira, Adolfo Igor Rodrigues, Kariem El-Boghdadly","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2024-105547","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Data suggest that preprocedural ultrasound may improve the efficacy of central neuraxial puncture. However, it remains uncertain whether these findings can be extended to various clinical scenarios, including diverse patient populations and the application of real-time ultrasound guidance. Additionally, it is unclear whether ultrasound-guided techniques improve safety and patient-centered outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched six databases for randomized trials of adult patients undergoing neuraxial puncture, comparing real-time ultrasound, preprocedural ultrasound, and landmark palpation for efficacy, safety and patient-centered outcomes. Our primary outcome was a failed first-attempt neuraxial puncture. After two-person screening and data extraction, meta-analyses were conducted and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was applied to assess the certainty of evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis of 71 studies involving 7153 patients, both real-time ultrasound (OR 0.30; 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.15 to 0.58; low certainty) and preprocedural ultrasound (OR 0.33; 95% CrI 0.24 to 0.44; moderate certainty) showed a significant reduction in the risk of a failed first neuraxial puncture. Real-time ultrasound had the best performance for preventing first-attempt failures (low certainty evidence). Although real-time ultrasound was also the leading method for reducing the risk of complete neuraxial puncture failure, the results did not show a statistically significant difference when compared with landmark palpation. Preprocedural ultrasound, however, significantly reduced the odds of complete puncture failure (OR 0.29; 95% CrI 0.11 to 0.61). These ultrasound-guided approaches also contributed to a reduction in certain complications and increased patient satisfaction without any other significant differences in additional outcomes. Trial sequential analysis confirmed that sufficient information was achieved for our primary outcome.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ultrasound-guided neuraxial puncture improves efficacy, reduces puncture attempts and needle redirections, reduces complication risks, and increases patient satisfaction, with low to moderate certainty of evidence. Despite real-time ultrasound's high ranking, a clear superiority over preprocedural ultrasound is not established. These results could prompt anesthesiologists and other clinicians to reassess their neuraxial puncture techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"737-746"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2024-105547","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Data suggest that preprocedural ultrasound may improve the efficacy of central neuraxial puncture. However, it remains uncertain whether these findings can be extended to various clinical scenarios, including diverse patient populations and the application of real-time ultrasound guidance. Additionally, it is unclear whether ultrasound-guided techniques improve safety and patient-centered outcomes.

Methods: We searched six databases for randomized trials of adult patients undergoing neuraxial puncture, comparing real-time ultrasound, preprocedural ultrasound, and landmark palpation for efficacy, safety and patient-centered outcomes. Our primary outcome was a failed first-attempt neuraxial puncture. After two-person screening and data extraction, meta-analyses were conducted and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was applied to assess the certainty of evidence.

Results: Analysis of 71 studies involving 7153 patients, both real-time ultrasound (OR 0.30; 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.15 to 0.58; low certainty) and preprocedural ultrasound (OR 0.33; 95% CrI 0.24 to 0.44; moderate certainty) showed a significant reduction in the risk of a failed first neuraxial puncture. Real-time ultrasound had the best performance for preventing first-attempt failures (low certainty evidence). Although real-time ultrasound was also the leading method for reducing the risk of complete neuraxial puncture failure, the results did not show a statistically significant difference when compared with landmark palpation. Preprocedural ultrasound, however, significantly reduced the odds of complete puncture failure (OR 0.29; 95% CrI 0.11 to 0.61). These ultrasound-guided approaches also contributed to a reduction in certain complications and increased patient satisfaction without any other significant differences in additional outcomes. Trial sequential analysis confirmed that sufficient information was achieved for our primary outcome.

Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided neuraxial puncture improves efficacy, reduces puncture attempts and needle redirections, reduces complication risks, and increases patient satisfaction, with low to moderate certainty of evidence. Despite real-time ultrasound's high ranking, a clear superiority over preprocedural ultrasound is not established. These results could prompt anesthesiologists and other clinicians to reassess their neuraxial puncture techniques.

超声引导与地标引导神经穿刺的有效性和安全性:随机临床试验的系统综述、网络荟萃分析和试验序列分析。
背景:数据表明,术前超声可提高中心神经穿刺的疗效。然而,目前仍不确定这些发现是否能推广到各种临床情况,包括不同的患者群体和实时超声引导的应用。此外,目前还不清楚超声引导技术是否能提高安全性和以患者为中心的结果:我们在六个数据库中搜索了针对接受神经穿刺的成年患者的随机试验,比较了实时超声、术前超声和地标触诊的有效性、安全性和以患者为中心的结果。我们的主要结果是首次尝试神经穿刺失败。经过两人筛选和数据提取后,我们进行了荟萃分析,并采用建议分级评估、发展和评价方法来评估证据的确定性:对涉及7153名患者的71项研究进行分析后发现,实时超声(OR值为0.30;95%可信区间(CrI)为0.15至0.58;低度确定性)和术前超声(OR值为0.33;95%可信区间(CrI)为0.24至0.44;中度确定性)均能显著降低首次神经穿刺失败的风险。实时超声在预防首次穿刺失败方面表现最佳(低度确定性证据)。虽然实时超声也是降低完全神经穿刺失败风险的主要方法,但与地标触诊相比,结果并未显示出统计学上的显著差异。然而,术前超声却能显著降低完全穿刺失败的几率(OR 0.29;95% CrI 0.11 至 0.61)。这些超声引导方法还有助于减少某些并发症和提高患者满意度,但在其他结果方面没有任何显著差异。试验序列分析证实,我们的主要结果获得了足够的信息:结论:超声引导下神经穿刺提高了疗效,减少了穿刺尝试和针头重定向,降低了并发症风险,提高了患者满意度,证据的确定性为中低。尽管实时超声的排名很高,但与术前超声相比,其明显的优越性并未得到证实。这些结果可能会促使麻醉师和其他临床医生重新评估他们的神经穿刺技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
175
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, the official publication of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA), is a monthly journal that publishes peer-reviewed scientific and clinical studies to advance the understanding and clinical application of regional techniques for surgical anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. Coverage includes intraoperative regional techniques, perioperative pain, chronic pain, obstetric anesthesia, pediatric anesthesia, outcome studies, and complications. Published for over thirty years, this respected journal also serves as the official publication of the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy (ESRA), the Asian and Oceanic Society of Regional Anesthesia (AOSRA), the Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia (LASRA), the African Society for Regional Anesthesia (AFSRA), and the Academy of Regional Anaesthesia of India (AORA).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信