Comparison of the postoperative analgesic efficacy of serratus anterior plane block with different types of blocks for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 SURGERY
Aysenur Dostbil, Kamber Kasali, Yener Aydin, Ilker Ince, Ali Bilal Ulas, Mehmet Akif Yilmaz, Muhammed Ceren, Atilla Eroğlu, Habip Burak Ozgodek, Mirac Selcen Ozkal, Hesham Elsharkawy
{"title":"Comparison of the postoperative analgesic efficacy of serratus anterior plane block with different types of blocks for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Aysenur Dostbil, Kamber Kasali, Yener Aydin, Ilker Ince, Ali Bilal Ulas, Mehmet Akif Yilmaz, Muhammed Ceren, Atilla Eroğlu, Habip Burak Ozgodek, Mirac Selcen Ozkal, Hesham Elsharkawy","doi":"10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2024.26887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of single-shot serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) with other regional block techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials published in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalKey, and PROSPERO electronic databases between March 24, 2014 and March 24, 2024 comparing the analgesic efficacy of SABP with other regional blocks in adult patients undergoing VATS were reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine randomized controlled trials consisting of a total of 537 participants (287 males, 250 females; mean age: 55.2±13.1 years) were included in this meta-analysis. Serratus anterior plane block was compared with erector spinae plane block (ESPB), local infiltration anesthesia (LIA), and thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB). The postoperative 24-h cumulative opioid consumption was statistically significantly higher in SAPB than in ESPB (standardized mean difference [SMD]=1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 3.73; Z=2.22; p=0.03; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> =97%; random effects model) and TPVB (SMD=0.63; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.96; Z=3.84; p<0.001; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> =0%; fixed effects model) and lower than in LIA (SMD=-1.77; 95% CI, -2.24 to -1.30; Z=7.41; p<0.001; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> =0%; fixed effects model). Active pain scores 2 h postoperatively were statistically significantly lower in SAPB than in LIA (SMD=-2.90; 95% CI, -5.29 to -0.50; Z=2.37; p=0.02; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> =93%; random-effects model). At 12 h postoperatively, both passive pain scores (SMD=0.37; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.66; Z=2.41; p=0.02; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> =0%; fixed effects model) and active pain scores (SMD=0.55; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.85; Z=3.60; p<0.001; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> =0%; fixed effects model) were statistically significantly lower in ESBP than in SAPB. There was no difference between SAPB and the other groups in terms of the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>After a comprehensive evaluation of postoperative analgesic effects, it appears that ESBP and TPVB may be better than SABP, and SABP may be better than LIA for analgesia of patients undergoing VATS. Further studies are required to determine the optimal regional analgesia technique in VATS.</p>","PeriodicalId":49413,"journal":{"name":"Turk Gogus Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Dergisi-Turkish Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery","volume":"32 4","pages":"419-435"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11620527/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turk Gogus Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Dergisi-Turkish Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2024.26887","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of single-shot serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) with other regional block techniques.

Methods: In this meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials published in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalKey, and PROSPERO electronic databases between March 24, 2014 and March 24, 2024 comparing the analgesic efficacy of SABP with other regional blocks in adult patients undergoing VATS were reviewed.

Results: Nine randomized controlled trials consisting of a total of 537 participants (287 males, 250 females; mean age: 55.2±13.1 years) were included in this meta-analysis. Serratus anterior plane block was compared with erector spinae plane block (ESPB), local infiltration anesthesia (LIA), and thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB). The postoperative 24-h cumulative opioid consumption was statistically significantly higher in SAPB than in ESPB (standardized mean difference [SMD]=1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 3.73; Z=2.22; p=0.03; I 2 =97%; random effects model) and TPVB (SMD=0.63; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.96; Z=3.84; p<0.001; I 2 =0%; fixed effects model) and lower than in LIA (SMD=-1.77; 95% CI, -2.24 to -1.30; Z=7.41; p<0.001; I 2 =0%; fixed effects model). Active pain scores 2 h postoperatively were statistically significantly lower in SAPB than in LIA (SMD=-2.90; 95% CI, -5.29 to -0.50; Z=2.37; p=0.02; I 2 =93%; random-effects model). At 12 h postoperatively, both passive pain scores (SMD=0.37; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.66; Z=2.41; p=0.02; I 2 =0%; fixed effects model) and active pain scores (SMD=0.55; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.85; Z=3.60; p<0.001; I 2 =0%; fixed effects model) were statistically significantly lower in ESBP than in SAPB. There was no difference between SAPB and the other groups in terms of the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Conclusion: After a comprehensive evaluation of postoperative analgesic effects, it appears that ESBP and TPVB may be better than SABP, and SABP may be better than LIA for analgesia of patients undergoing VATS. Further studies are required to determine the optimal regional analgesia technique in VATS.

电视胸腔镜手术中使用锯肌前平面阻滞与不同类型阻滞的术后镇痛效果比较:随机对照试验的系统回顾和meta分析。
背景:本研究旨在比较电视胸腔镜手术(VATS)中单针前锯肌阻滞(SAPB)与其他区域阻滞技术的镇痛效果。方法:在本荟萃分析中,回顾了2014年3月24日至2024年3月24日发表在PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science、ClinicalKey和PROSPERO电子数据库上的随机对照试验,比较SABP与其他区域阻滞在成年VATS患者中的镇痛效果。结果:9项随机对照试验共纳入537名受试者(男性287人,女性250人;平均年龄:55.2±13.1岁)纳入本荟萃分析。将锯肌前平面阻滞与竖脊肌平面阻滞(ESPB)、局部浸润麻醉(LIA)和胸椎旁阻滞(TPVB)进行比较。术后24小时累计阿片类药物消耗SAPB组明显高于ESPB组(标准化平均差[SMD]=1.98;95%置信区间[CI], 0.23 ~ 3.73;Z = 2.22;p = 0.03;I 2 =97%;随机效应模型)和TPVB (SMD=0.63;95% CI, 0.31 ~ 0.96;Z = 3.84;pI 2 =0%;固定效应模型),低于LIA (SMD=-1.77;95% CI, -2.24 ~ -1.30;Z = 7.41;pI 2 =0%;固定效果模型)。SAPB组术后2 h活动疼痛评分明显低于LIA组(SMD=-2.90;95% CI, -5.29 ~ -0.50;Z = 2.37;p = 0.02;i2 =93%;随机模型)。术后12 h,两组被动疼痛评分(SMD=0.37;95% CI, 0.07 ~ 0.66;Z = 2.41;p = 0.02;I 2 =0%;固定效应模型)和活动疼痛评分(SMD=0.55;95% CI, 0.25 ~ 0.85;Z = 3.60;pI 2 =0%;固定效应模型)ESBP组比SAPB组明显降低。SAPB组与其他组在术后恶心和呕吐发生率方面无差异。结论:综合评价VATS患者术后镇痛效果,ESBP和TPVB可能优于SABP, SABP可能优于LIA。进一步的研究需要确定最佳的局部镇痛技术在VATS。
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
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
98
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Turkish Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery is an international open access journal which publishes original articles on topics in generality of Cardiac, Thoracic, Arterial, Venous, Lymphatic Disorders and their managements. These encompass all relevant clinical, surgical and experimental studies, editorials, current and collective reviews, technical know-how papers, case reports, interesting images, How to Do It papers, correspondences, and commentaries.
×
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