Paravertebral block is not superior to the interpectoral and pectoserratus plane block for patients undergoing breast surgery: An updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis.

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Burhan Dost, Dario Bugada, Yunus Emre Karapinar, Eleonora Balzani, Muzeyyen Beldagli, Giulia Aviani Fulvio, Mirac Selcen Ozkal Yalin, Esra Turunc, Nicolò Sella, Alessandro De Cassai
{"title":"Paravertebral block is not superior to the interpectoral and pectoserratus plane block for patients undergoing breast surgery: An updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis.","authors":"Burhan Dost, Dario Bugada, Yunus Emre Karapinar, Eleonora Balzani, Muzeyyen Beldagli, Giulia Aviani Fulvio, Mirac Selcen Ozkal Yalin, Esra Turunc, Nicolò Sella, Alessandro De Cassai","doi":"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Breast surgery is frequently associated with significant acute postoperative pain, necessitating effective pain management strategies. Both thoracic paravertebral block (PVB) and interpectoral plane and pectoserratus plane (IP+PS) blocks have been used to relieve pain after breast surgery.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis, we aimed to identify the optimal analgesic technique for achieving effective pain relief in breast surgery. The primary outcome of this study was postoperative opioid consumption expressed as morphine milligram equivalent (MME) at 24 h. Secondary outcomes included resting and movement pain scores at 0, 6, 12 and 24 h, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and rescue analgesic requirements within the first 24 h.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis (TSA).</p><p><strong>Data search: </strong>We systematically searched Pubmed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Google Scholar, Medline (from inception to until 1 October 2024).</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>RCTs that include patients undergoing breast surgery with PVB or IP+PS block, with no language restriction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen RCTs with 924 patients were included. No significant difference in MME consumption at 24 h was observed between the two techniques; mean difference (MD) -1.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.27 to 0.38, P = 0.101). Subgroup analyses revealed a minor advantage for IP+PS in patients without axillary involvement; MD -2.42 (95% CI -3.56 to -1.29, P < 0.001), though below the threshold of clinical significance. Secondary outcomes, including pain scores, PONV incidence and rescue analgesic requirements were comparable. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) confirmed sufficient sample size, suggesting further studies may not alter conclusions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PVB and IP+PS blocks offer comparable analgesic efficacy and opioid-sparing effects after breast surgery, with no meaningful differences in 24-h MME consumption, pain scores, or PONV incidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":11920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002148","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Breast surgery is frequently associated with significant acute postoperative pain, necessitating effective pain management strategies. Both thoracic paravertebral block (PVB) and interpectoral plane and pectoserratus plane (IP+PS) blocks have been used to relieve pain after breast surgery.

Objective: In this systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis, we aimed to identify the optimal analgesic technique for achieving effective pain relief in breast surgery. The primary outcome of this study was postoperative opioid consumption expressed as morphine milligram equivalent (MME) at 24 h. Secondary outcomes included resting and movement pain scores at 0, 6, 12 and 24 h, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and rescue analgesic requirements within the first 24 h.

Design: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis (TSA).

Data search: We systematically searched Pubmed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Google Scholar, Medline (from inception to until 1 October 2024).

Eligibility criteria: RCTs that include patients undergoing breast surgery with PVB or IP+PS block, with no language restriction.

Results: Eighteen RCTs with 924 patients were included. No significant difference in MME consumption at 24 h was observed between the two techniques; mean difference (MD) -1.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.27 to 0.38, P = 0.101). Subgroup analyses revealed a minor advantage for IP+PS in patients without axillary involvement; MD -2.42 (95% CI -3.56 to -1.29, P < 0.001), though below the threshold of clinical significance. Secondary outcomes, including pain scores, PONV incidence and rescue analgesic requirements were comparable. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) confirmed sufficient sample size, suggesting further studies may not alter conclusions.

Conclusion: PVB and IP+PS blocks offer comparable analgesic efficacy and opioid-sparing effects after breast surgery, with no meaningful differences in 24-h MME consumption, pain scores, or PONV incidence.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
351
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA) publishes original work of high scientific quality in the field of anaesthesiology, pain, emergency medicine and intensive care. Preference is given to experimental work or clinical observation in man, and to laboratory work of clinical relevance. The journal also publishes commissioned reviews by an authority, editorials, invited commentaries, special articles, pro and con debates, and short reports (correspondences, case reports, short reports of clinical studies).
×
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