Comparison of Safety and Efficacy of Anesthesia Methods in Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: A Network Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Pain Research & Management Pub Date : 2024-12-06 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1155/prm/8022643
Bin Zheng, Panfeng Yu, Yan Liang, Haiying Liu
{"title":"Comparison of Safety and Efficacy of Anesthesia Methods in Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: A Network Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Bin Zheng, Panfeng Yu, Yan Liang, Haiying Liu","doi":"10.1155/prm/8022643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of local anesthesia, general anesthesia, and epidural anesthesia in percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD). <b>Methods:</b> We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and OVID databases for all relevant studies. All statistical analysis was performed using STATA 17.0. <b>Results:</b> Fourteen studies were finally included, comprising 7 randomized controlled trials and 7 retrospective studies. The total number of subjects across these studies was 1655, with 316 undergoing general anesthesia, 789 undergoing local anesthesia, and 550 undergoing epidural anesthesia. The meta-analysis of pairwise comparisons suggests that there are no differences among epidural, general anesthesia, and local anesthesia in terms of postoperative VAS, ODI, and surgery time. Regarding complications, general anesthesia has a higher complication rate compared with local anesthesia, but there are no differences between epidural and general anesthesia or between epidural and local anesthesia. In terms of anesthesia satisfaction, both general and epidural anesthesia have higher satisfaction rates compared with local anesthesia, with no significant difference between general and epidural anesthesia. The ranking of the best probabilities shows that epidural anesthesia has the lowest postoperative VAS and highest anesthesia satisfaction. General anesthesia has the lowest ODI scores. Local anesthesia has the fewest complications and operative time. <b>Conclusion:</b> Local anesthesia, general anesthesia, and epidural anesthesia are all safe and effective methods for PELD. Local anesthesia has advantages in complications and operation time. Epidural anesthesia is most advantageous in anesthesia satisfaction and postoperative VAS scores. General anesthesia is most advantageous in postoperative ODI. In the future, more multicenter RCTs are needed to further compare the safety and effectiveness of different anesthesia methods in PELD.</p>","PeriodicalId":19913,"journal":{"name":"Pain Research & Management","volume":"2024 ","pages":"8022643"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11645130/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Research & Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/prm/8022643","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of local anesthesia, general anesthesia, and epidural anesthesia in percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD). Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and OVID databases for all relevant studies. All statistical analysis was performed using STATA 17.0. Results: Fourteen studies were finally included, comprising 7 randomized controlled trials and 7 retrospective studies. The total number of subjects across these studies was 1655, with 316 undergoing general anesthesia, 789 undergoing local anesthesia, and 550 undergoing epidural anesthesia. The meta-analysis of pairwise comparisons suggests that there are no differences among epidural, general anesthesia, and local anesthesia in terms of postoperative VAS, ODI, and surgery time. Regarding complications, general anesthesia has a higher complication rate compared with local anesthesia, but there are no differences between epidural and general anesthesia or between epidural and local anesthesia. In terms of anesthesia satisfaction, both general and epidural anesthesia have higher satisfaction rates compared with local anesthesia, with no significant difference between general and epidural anesthesia. The ranking of the best probabilities shows that epidural anesthesia has the lowest postoperative VAS and highest anesthesia satisfaction. General anesthesia has the lowest ODI scores. Local anesthesia has the fewest complications and operative time. Conclusion: Local anesthesia, general anesthesia, and epidural anesthesia are all safe and effective methods for PELD. Local anesthesia has advantages in complications and operation time. Epidural anesthesia is most advantageous in anesthesia satisfaction and postoperative VAS scores. General anesthesia is most advantageous in postoperative ODI. In the future, more multicenter RCTs are needed to further compare the safety and effectiveness of different anesthesia methods in PELD.

经皮内窥镜腰椎间盘切除术中麻醉方法的安全性和有效性比较:网络 Meta 分析。
背景:本研究旨在系统评估局部麻醉、全身麻醉和硬膜外麻醉在经皮内窥镜腰椎间盘切除术(PELD)中的安全性和有效性。方法:我们在 PubMed、EMBASE 和 OVID 数据库中搜索了所有相关研究。所有统计分析均使用 STATA 17.0 进行。结果:最终纳入了 14 项研究,包括 7 项随机对照试验和 7 项回顾性研究。这些研究的受试者总数为 1655 人,其中 316 人接受了全身麻醉,789 人接受了局部麻醉,550 人接受了硬膜外麻醉。成对比较的荟萃分析表明,硬膜外麻醉、全身麻醉和局部麻醉在术后 VAS、ODI 和手术时间方面没有差异。在并发症方面,全身麻醉的并发症发生率高于局部麻醉,但硬膜外麻醉与全身麻醉、硬膜外麻醉与局部麻醉之间没有差异。在麻醉满意度方面,全身麻醉和硬膜外麻醉的满意度均高于局部麻醉,全身麻醉和硬膜外麻醉之间没有明显差异。最佳概率排名显示,硬膜外麻醉的术后 VAS 最低,麻醉满意度最高。全身麻醉的 ODI 评分最低。局部麻醉的并发症和手术时间最少。结论:局部麻醉、全身麻醉和硬膜外麻醉都是安全有效的 PELD 方法。局部麻醉在并发症和手术时间方面更具优势。硬膜外麻醉在麻醉满意度和术后 VAS 评分方面最具优势。全身麻醉在术后 ODI 方面最具优势。今后,需要进行更多的多中心 RCT 研究,以进一步比较不同麻醉方法在 PELD 中的安全性和有效性。
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
Pain Research & Management
Pain Research & Management CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
109
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain Research and Management is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies in all areas of pain management. The most recent Impact Factor for Pain Research and Management is 1.685 according to the 2015 Journal Citation Reports released by Thomson Reuters in 2016.
×
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