Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Application of Ultrasound-Guided Thoracic Paravertebral Block in Clinical Surgical Treatment.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Yanchun Fang, Haiyan Lu, Jinxia Yang, Hailing He, Suhuan Rao
{"title":"Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Application of Ultrasound-Guided Thoracic Paravertebral Block in Clinical Surgical Treatment.","authors":"Yanchun Fang, Haiyan Lu, Jinxia Yang, Hailing He, Suhuan Rao","doi":"10.62713/aic.3495","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>There is a lack of consensus regarding the efficacy of thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) and erector spinae plane block (ESPB) for postoperative pain in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The comparison of TPVB and ESPB was explored through a systematic review and meta-analysis (MA) of relevant RCTs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of relevant literature was conducted using databases such as PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE, from 2019 to June 2024. The search utilized keywords such as \"TPVB\", \"ESPB\", and \"postoperative analogy\". Following the search, quality evaluation and extraction of outcome indicators were implemented. The software RevMan5.3 was employed for data analysis and evaluation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis included 18 articles. In patients at rest, a significant difference in pain scores was observed between the TPVB group and the ESPB group at 1 h postoperatively, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.52 [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.88 to -0.16, p = 0.005]. In non-resting patients, there were significant differences in pain scores between TPVB and ESPB at 24 and 48 h postoperatively. At 24 h postoperatively, the SMD was -0.37 (95% CI: -0.69 to -0.05, p = 0.02), and at 48 h postoperatively, in the visual analog scale (VAS) subgroup, the SMD was -0.38 (95% CI: -0.65 to -0.11, p = 0.006). Furthermore, notable statistical variations were identified in the frequency of rescue analgesia required following surgery between TPVB and ESPB.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The meta-analysis indicated that lower clinical pain scores in non-resting states at 24 and 48 h post-surgery were associated with TPVB rather than ESPB. This finding was accompanied by a more discernible and accurate analgesic effect, as well as a significant reduction in the need for rescue analgesia following surgical procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":8210,"journal":{"name":"Annali italiani di chirurgia","volume":"95 6","pages":"1026-1047"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annali italiani di chirurgia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62713/aic.3495","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: There is a lack of consensus regarding the efficacy of thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) and erector spinae plane block (ESPB) for postoperative pain in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The comparison of TPVB and ESPB was explored through a systematic review and meta-analysis (MA) of relevant RCTs.

Methods: A comprehensive search of relevant literature was conducted using databases such as PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE, from 2019 to June 2024. The search utilized keywords such as "TPVB", "ESPB", and "postoperative analogy". Following the search, quality evaluation and extraction of outcome indicators were implemented. The software RevMan5.3 was employed for data analysis and evaluation.

Results: The analysis included 18 articles. In patients at rest, a significant difference in pain scores was observed between the TPVB group and the ESPB group at 1 h postoperatively, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.52 [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.88 to -0.16, p = 0.005]. In non-resting patients, there were significant differences in pain scores between TPVB and ESPB at 24 and 48 h postoperatively. At 24 h postoperatively, the SMD was -0.37 (95% CI: -0.69 to -0.05, p = 0.02), and at 48 h postoperatively, in the visual analog scale (VAS) subgroup, the SMD was -0.38 (95% CI: -0.65 to -0.11, p = 0.006). Furthermore, notable statistical variations were identified in the frequency of rescue analgesia required following surgery between TPVB and ESPB.

Conclusions: The meta-analysis indicated that lower clinical pain scores in non-resting states at 24 and 48 h post-surgery were associated with TPVB rather than ESPB. This finding was accompanied by a more discernible and accurate analgesic effect, as well as a significant reduction in the need for rescue analgesia following surgical procedures.

超声引导胸椎旁阻滞在临床外科治疗中的应用的系统评价与meta分析。
目的:在随机对照试验(RCTs)中,关于胸椎旁阻滞(TPVB)和竖脊平面阻滞(ESPB)治疗术后疼痛的疗效缺乏共识。通过相关随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析(MA),探讨了TPVB和ESPB的比较。方法:检索2019年至2024年6月PubMed、Embase、MEDLINE等数据库的相关文献。搜索关键词包括“TPVB”、“ESPB”和“术后类比”。在检索之后,进行质量评价和结果指标提取。采用RevMan5.3软件进行数据分析和评价。结果:纳入18篇文献。静息时,TPVB组与ESPB组术后1 h疼痛评分差异有统计学意义,标准化平均差异(SMD)为-0.52[95%可信区间(CI): -0.88 ~ -0.16, p = 0.005]。在非休息患者中,术后24和48 h TPVB和ESPB疼痛评分有显著差异。术后24 h SMD为-0.37 (95% CI: -0.69 ~ -0.05, p = 0.02),术后48 h视觉模拟评分(VAS)亚组SMD为-0.38 (95% CI: -0.65 ~ -0.11, p = 0.006)。此外,在TPVB和ESPB手术后需要的抢救性镇痛的频率上发现了显著的统计学差异。结论:荟萃分析显示,术后24和48小时非静息状态下较低的临床疼痛评分与TPVB相关,而与ESPB无关。这一发现伴随着更明显和准确的镇痛效果,以及外科手术后抢救镇痛需求的显著减少。
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
0.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
116
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Annali Italiani di Chirurgia is a bimonthly journal and covers all aspects of surgery:elective, emergency and experimental surgery, as well as problems involving technology, teaching, organization and forensic medicine. The articles are published in Italian or English, though English is preferred because it facilitates the international diffusion of the journal (v.Guidelines for Authors and Norme per gli Autori). The articles published are divided into three main sections:editorials, original articles, and case reports and innovations.
×
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