Continuous local anaesthetic wound infusion in infants undergoing thoracic or abdominal surgery: A systematic review

Jeewan Jyoti , Eva Sloukova , Kaye Spence , Annabel Webb , Albert Shun , Himanshu Popat
{"title":"Continuous local anaesthetic wound infusion in infants undergoing thoracic or abdominal surgery: A systematic review","authors":"Jeewan Jyoti ,&nbsp;Eva Sloukova ,&nbsp;Kaye Spence ,&nbsp;Annabel Webb ,&nbsp;Albert Shun ,&nbsp;Himanshu Popat","doi":"10.1016/j.yjpso.2024.100177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To determine whether continuous local anaesthetic wound infusion (CLAWI) provides more effective pain relief and decrease the need for systemic opioids compared to other analgesic agents in term or preterm newborn infants undergoing thoracic or abdominal surgery.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase and CINAHL were searched from database inception to August 2022. Publications were screened and their references were hand-searched to identify additional studies. This review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster RCTs. Two reviewers independently extracted data and examined the methodological quality of the eligible studies. A meta-analysis was performed for available outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>After screening 1202 articles, two RCTs with 98 patients were included. Meta-analysis for combined data was possible for only two outcomes: pain scores post-surgery and length of hospital stay. The random effects model for the pooled standardised mean difference of pain scores between treatment groups post-surgery was -2.54 (95 % CI:7.53, 2.46, <em>p</em> = 0.3196) and for length of stay in the NICU was -0.19 (95 % CI:0.58, 0.21, <em>p</em> = 0.3574), suggesting that CLAWI was not more effective in either providing pain relief or reducing length of stay. However, the small number of studies included, the considerable heterogeneity between the studies, and the small sample sizes of the individual studies limit the generalizability of the findings.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This review highlights the need for further, adequately powered well-designed, multicentre trials to examine the effectiveness of CLAWI in reducing postoperative pain in newborns undergoing abdominal and thoracic surgery.</div></div><div><h3>Level of evidence</h3><div>Level I - Evidence from a systematic review of all relevant randomized controlled trials</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100821,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatric Surgery Open","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatric Surgery Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949711624000625","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To determine whether continuous local anaesthetic wound infusion (CLAWI) provides more effective pain relief and decrease the need for systemic opioids compared to other analgesic agents in term or preterm newborn infants undergoing thoracic or abdominal surgery.

Methods

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase and CINAHL were searched from database inception to August 2022. Publications were screened and their references were hand-searched to identify additional studies. This review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster RCTs. Two reviewers independently extracted data and examined the methodological quality of the eligible studies. A meta-analysis was performed for available outcomes.

Results

After screening 1202 articles, two RCTs with 98 patients were included. Meta-analysis for combined data was possible for only two outcomes: pain scores post-surgery and length of hospital stay. The random effects model for the pooled standardised mean difference of pain scores between treatment groups post-surgery was -2.54 (95 % CI:7.53, 2.46, p = 0.3196) and for length of stay in the NICU was -0.19 (95 % CI:0.58, 0.21, p = 0.3574), suggesting that CLAWI was not more effective in either providing pain relief or reducing length of stay. However, the small number of studies included, the considerable heterogeneity between the studies, and the small sample sizes of the individual studies limit the generalizability of the findings.

Conclusion

This review highlights the need for further, adequately powered well-designed, multicentre trials to examine the effectiveness of CLAWI in reducing postoperative pain in newborns undergoing abdominal and thoracic surgery.

Level of evidence

Level I - Evidence from a systematic review of all relevant randomized controlled trials
对接受胸腔或腹腔手术的婴儿进行伤口持续局部麻醉输注:系统综述
目的 确定与其他镇痛剂相比,连续局部麻醉伤口输注(CLAWI)是否能更有效地缓解接受胸腔或腹部手术的足月或早产新生儿的疼痛,并减少其对全身性阿片类药物的需求。方法 检索了从数据库建立到 2022 年 8 月的对照试验中央注册中心、Medline、Embase 和 CINAHL。对发表的文章进行筛选,并手工检索其参考文献,以确定其他研究。本综述包括随机对照试验(RCT)、准 RCT 和分组 RCT。两名审稿人独立提取数据,并对符合条件的研究进行方法学质量检查。结果在筛选了1202篇文章后,纳入了两项RCT,共98名患者。仅对两项结果的合并数据进行了荟萃分析:手术后疼痛评分和住院时间。随机效应模型显示,手术后治疗组之间疼痛评分的汇总标准化平均差异为 -2.54 (95 % CI:7.53, 2.46, p = 0.3196),而新生儿重症监护室的住院时间为 -0.19 (95 % CI:0.58, 0.21, p = 0.3574),这表明 CLAWI 在缓解疼痛或缩短住院时间方面并不更有效。然而,由于纳入的研究数量较少,研究之间存在很大的异质性,且单项研究的样本量较小,因此限制了研究结果的推广性。结论本综述强调有必要进一步开展有充分证据支持、设计良好的多中心试验,以检查 CLAWI 在减少接受腹部和胸部手术的新生儿术后疼痛方面的有效性。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信