Relative Perioperative Analgesic Efficacy of Superficial Versus Deep Approach of Serratus Anterior Plane Block for Anterior Chest Wall Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Narinder P Singh, Jeetinder Kaur Makkar, Ira Dhawan, Neha Singh, Preet M Singh, Naveed Siddiqui
{"title":"Relative Perioperative Analgesic Efficacy of Superficial Versus Deep Approach of Serratus Anterior Plane Block for Anterior Chest Wall Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Narinder P Singh, Jeetinder Kaur Makkar, Ira Dhawan, Neha Singh, Preet M Singh, Naveed Siddiqui","doi":"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Both superficial and deep serratus anterior plane (SAP) blocks are effective for anterior chest wall surgeries, but there is little clarity on which is more effective. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the comparative efficacy of the 2 approaches for SAP block after anterior chest wall surgery.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Registers of Controlled Trials for eligible RCTs from inception until August 2023. The primary outcome was opioid consumption during the first 24 hours of the postoperative period. The secondary outcomes included pain scores at various intervals, intraoperative opioid consumption, time to first analgesic request, block-related complications, opioid-related side effects, and patient satisfaction scores. Statistical analysis of the pooled data was performed using Review Manager Version 5.3.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 7 RCTs published between 2020 and 2022, enrolling 371 patients (186 in the superficial SAP block and 187 in the deep SAP block). Moderate certainty of evidence suggests that both the approaches (deep and superficial) of SAP block were comparable for 24-hour oral morphine equivalent consumption with a mean difference (MD) of 3.78 mg (95% CI: -1.70 to 9.29; P = 0.18; I2 = 87%). The results of other secondary outcomes were comparable, including resting pain scores with an MD of 0.08 (95% CI: -0.27 to 0.43; P = 0.67; I2 = 87%) for early pain and MD of 0.63 (95% CI: -1.28 to 0.01; P = 0.05; I2 = 95%) for late pain scores, time to first analgesic request with MD of -0.41 hour (95% CI: -1.40 to 0.59; P = 0.42; I2 = 90%), and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (odds ratio: 1.45 (95% CI: 0.72 to 2.90; P = 0.30; I2 = 0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Current evidence does not support the preference for one approach of SAP block over the other for postoperative pain. Based on the available data, we recommend further future trials to determine any differences between these interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":50678,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":"726-733"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001249","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Both superficial and deep serratus anterior plane (SAP) blocks are effective for anterior chest wall surgeries, but there is little clarity on which is more effective. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the comparative efficacy of the 2 approaches for SAP block after anterior chest wall surgery.
Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Registers of Controlled Trials for eligible RCTs from inception until August 2023. The primary outcome was opioid consumption during the first 24 hours of the postoperative period. The secondary outcomes included pain scores at various intervals, intraoperative opioid consumption, time to first analgesic request, block-related complications, opioid-related side effects, and patient satisfaction scores. Statistical analysis of the pooled data was performed using Review Manager Version 5.3.
Results: We identified 7 RCTs published between 2020 and 2022, enrolling 371 patients (186 in the superficial SAP block and 187 in the deep SAP block). Moderate certainty of evidence suggests that both the approaches (deep and superficial) of SAP block were comparable for 24-hour oral morphine equivalent consumption with a mean difference (MD) of 3.78 mg (95% CI: -1.70 to 9.29; P = 0.18; I2 = 87%). The results of other secondary outcomes were comparable, including resting pain scores with an MD of 0.08 (95% CI: -0.27 to 0.43; P = 0.67; I2 = 87%) for early pain and MD of 0.63 (95% CI: -1.28 to 0.01; P = 0.05; I2 = 95%) for late pain scores, time to first analgesic request with MD of -0.41 hour (95% CI: -1.40 to 0.59; P = 0.42; I2 = 90%), and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (odds ratio: 1.45 (95% CI: 0.72 to 2.90; P = 0.30; I2 = 0%).
Conclusion: Current evidence does not support the preference for one approach of SAP block over the other for postoperative pain. Based on the available data, we recommend further future trials to determine any differences between these interventions.
期刊介绍:
The Clinical Journal of Pain explores all aspects of pain and its effective treatment, bringing readers the insights of leading anesthesiologists, surgeons, internists, neurologists, orthopedists, psychiatrists and psychologists, clinical pharmacologists, and rehabilitation medicine specialists. This peer-reviewed journal presents timely and thought-provoking articles on clinical dilemmas in pain management; valuable diagnostic procedures; promising new pharmacological, surgical, and other therapeutic modalities; psychosocial dimensions of pain; and ethical issues of concern to all medical professionals. The journal also publishes Special Topic issues on subjects of particular relevance to the practice of pain medicine.