Efficacy and Safety of Erector Spinae Plane Block in Pain Management for Inguinal Hernia Repair: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Zain Ali Nadeem, Aqsa Zainab, Armaghan Ur Rehman, Ariba Fida, Maha Malik, Neha Malik, Saad Nadeem, Muhammad Hussnain Bin Asif, Nisa Kapoor Sheikh, Muhammad Hamza Shoaib, Nouman Amjad, Aimen Nadeem, Abdulqadir J Nashwan, Muhammad Ahmad Nadeem, Amir Humza Sohail
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Erector Spinae Plane Block in Pain Management for Inguinal Hernia Repair: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Zain Ali Nadeem, Aqsa Zainab, Armaghan Ur Rehman, Ariba Fida, Maha Malik, Neha Malik, Saad Nadeem, Muhammad Hussnain Bin Asif, Nisa Kapoor Sheikh, Muhammad Hamza Shoaib, Nouman Amjad, Aimen Nadeem, Abdulqadir J Nashwan, Muhammad Ahmad Nadeem, Amir Humza Sohail","doi":"10.1002/wjs.70105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a new anesthetic technique, but its use in inguinal hernia repair remains a subject of debate. We aim to determine the efficacy and safety of ESPB in reducing postoperative pain in inguinal hernia repair in adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, Science Direct, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP for all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using ESPB in inguinal hernia repair. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, with a third resolving disputes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Data were analyzed on R version 4.4.1, using risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Meta-analysis of 6 RCTs revealed no significant reduction in postoperative pain with ESPB at rest or with movement at any time point nor did it significantly lower 24-h opioid consumption. However, in subgroup analysis, ESPB reduced the pain at rest at 12 h in the intraoperative subgroup (p < 0.01) and the 24-h opioid consumption in the intraoperative and the laparoscopic subgroups (p = 0.02). ESPB did not differ significantly from control in time to first rescue analgesia and proportion of patients requiring rescue analgesia. ESPB was not associated with nausea, vomiting, or urinary retention. One study was at high risk of bias, one with some concern, and four at low risk.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ESPB reduces opioid consumption following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, but the pain reduction is not clinically significant and the efficacy in open repair is uncertain.</p>","PeriodicalId":23926,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.70105","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a new anesthetic technique, but its use in inguinal hernia repair remains a subject of debate. We aim to determine the efficacy and safety of ESPB in reducing postoperative pain in inguinal hernia repair in adults.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Science Direct, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP for all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using ESPB in inguinal hernia repair. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, with a third resolving disputes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Data were analyzed on R version 4.4.1, using risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: Meta-analysis of 6 RCTs revealed no significant reduction in postoperative pain with ESPB at rest or with movement at any time point nor did it significantly lower 24-h opioid consumption. However, in subgroup analysis, ESPB reduced the pain at rest at 12 h in the intraoperative subgroup (p < 0.01) and the 24-h opioid consumption in the intraoperative and the laparoscopic subgroups (p = 0.02). ESPB did not differ significantly from control in time to first rescue analgesia and proportion of patients requiring rescue analgesia. ESPB was not associated with nausea, vomiting, or urinary retention. One study was at high risk of bias, one with some concern, and four at low risk.

Conclusions: ESPB reduces opioid consumption following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, but the pain reduction is not clinically significant and the efficacy in open repair is uncertain.

竖脊肌平面阻滞治疗腹股沟疝修补疼痛的疗效和安全性:一项随机对照试验的最新系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:竖脊肌平面阻滞(ESPB)是一种新的麻醉技术,但其在腹股沟疝修补中的应用仍存在争议。我们的目的是确定ESPB在减轻成人腹股沟疝修补术后疼痛的有效性和安全性。方法:我们检索MEDLINE、Science Direct、Embase、CENTRAL、ClinicalTrials.gov和WHO ICTRP,查找所有使用ESPB进行腹股沟疝修补的相关随机对照试验(RCTs)。两名审稿人独立筛选了这些研究,第三名审稿人解决了争议。使用Cochrane RoB 2工具评估偏倚风险。使用R版本4.4.1对数据进行分析,使用二分类的风险比(RRs)和95%置信区间(ci)的连续结局的平均差异(MDs)。结果:6项随机对照试验的荟萃分析显示,ESPB在休息或运动时的术后疼痛在任何时间点都没有显著减少,也没有显著降低24小时阿片类药物的消耗。然而,在亚组分析中,ESPB减轻了术中亚组12 h休息时的疼痛(p结论:ESPB减少了腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术后阿片类药物的消耗,但疼痛减轻的临床意义不显著,在开放式修补中的疗效尚不确定。
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
World Journal of Surgery
World Journal of Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
460
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: World Journal of Surgery is the official publication of the International Society of Surgery/Societe Internationale de Chirurgie (iss-sic.com). Under the editorship of Dr. Julie Ann Sosa, World Journal of Surgery provides an in-depth, international forum for the most authoritative information on major clinical problems in the fields of clinical and experimental surgery, surgical education, and socioeconomic aspects of surgical care. Contributions are reviewed and selected by a group of distinguished surgeons from across the world who make up the Editorial Board.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信