Ketamine for postoperative pain treatment in spinal surgery: Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-19 DOI:10.1111/aas.14307
Anders Schou Tornøe, Alison Holten Pind, Christina Cleveland Westerdahl Laursen, Cheme Andersen, Mathias Maagaard, Ole Mathiesen
{"title":"Ketamine for postoperative pain treatment in spinal surgery: Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.","authors":"Anders Schou Tornøe,&nbsp;Alison Holten Pind,&nbsp;Christina Cleveland Westerdahl Laursen,&nbsp;Cheme Andersen,&nbsp;Mathias Maagaard,&nbsp;Ole Mathiesen","doi":"10.1111/aas.14307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>We aimed to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of perioperative pain treatment with ketamine in patients undergoing spinal surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception until 15 February 2023 for randomised clinical trials comparing ketamine with placebo or no intervention in patients undergoing spinal surgery. The primary outcomes were cumulative opioid consumption at 24 h postoperatively and serious adverse events. We adhered to recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration and performed meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to assess the risks of random errors, risk of bias assessment to evaluate the risks of systematic errors, and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included a total of 28 randomised clinical trials enrolling 2110 participants providing data for our pre-defined outcomes. Twenty-three trials enrolled adult participants and 5 trials enrolled paediatric participants. Three trials were at low risk of bias. Meta-analysis and TSA of trials including adults showed that ketamine versus placebo or no intervention seemed to reduce the cumulative 24-h opioid consumption (mean difference -17.57 mg; TSA-adjusted 95% confidence interval, -24.22 to -10.92; p < .01; low certainty of evidence), and there was no evidence of a difference of ketamine versus placebo or no intervention on the risk of serious adverse events (risk ratio 2.16; 96.7% confidence interval, 0.35 to 13.17; p = .36; very low certainty of evidence).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In adults undergoing spinal surgery, ketamine may reduce cumulative 24-h opioid consumption. Ketamine may increase the occurrence of serious adverse events, but the evidence was very uncertain.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":"1306-1321"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14307","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: We aimed to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of perioperative pain treatment with ketamine in patients undergoing spinal surgery.

Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception until 15 February 2023 for randomised clinical trials comparing ketamine with placebo or no intervention in patients undergoing spinal surgery. The primary outcomes were cumulative opioid consumption at 24 h postoperatively and serious adverse events. We adhered to recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration and performed meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to assess the risks of random errors, risk of bias assessment to evaluate the risks of systematic errors, and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

Results: We included a total of 28 randomised clinical trials enrolling 2110 participants providing data for our pre-defined outcomes. Twenty-three trials enrolled adult participants and 5 trials enrolled paediatric participants. Three trials were at low risk of bias. Meta-analysis and TSA of trials including adults showed that ketamine versus placebo or no intervention seemed to reduce the cumulative 24-h opioid consumption (mean difference -17.57 mg; TSA-adjusted 95% confidence interval, -24.22 to -10.92; p < .01; low certainty of evidence), and there was no evidence of a difference of ketamine versus placebo or no intervention on the risk of serious adverse events (risk ratio 2.16; 96.7% confidence interval, 0.35 to 13.17; p = .36; very low certainty of evidence).

Conclusion: In adults undergoing spinal surgery, ketamine may reduce cumulative 24-h opioid consumption. Ketamine may increase the occurrence of serious adverse events, but the evidence was very uncertain.

氯胺酮用于脊柱外科术后疼痛治疗:荟萃分析和试验序列分析的系统综述。
目的:我们旨在评估氯胺酮在脊柱手术患者围手术期疼痛治疗中的有益和有害影响。方法:从开始到2023年2月15日,我们搜索了Medline、Embase和CENTRAL,以比较氯胺酮与安慰剂或不干预脊柱手术患者的随机临床试验。主要结果是24岁时的累积阿片类药物消费 h及严重不良事件。我们遵循Cochrane协作的建议,进行了荟萃分析、试验序列分析(TSA)来评估随机错误的风险,偏倚风险评估来评估系统错误的风险,开发和评估(GRADE)。结果:我们共纳入了28项随机临床试验,共招募了2110名参与者,为我们预定义的结果提供数据。23项试验纳入成年参与者,5项试验纳入儿科参与者。三项试验的偏倚风险较低。包括成人在内的试验的荟萃分析和TSA显示,氯胺酮与安慰剂相比或不干预似乎可以减少24小时累积阿片类药物的消耗(平均差异-17.57 mg;TSA将95%置信区间从-24.22调整为-10.92;p<0.01;证据的确定性低),并且没有证据表明氯胺酮与安慰剂对严重不良事件的风险有差异,或者没有干预措施(风险比2.16;96.7%置信区间,0.35至13.17;p = .36;结论:在接受脊柱手术的成年人中,氯胺酮可以减少24小时累积的阿片类药物消耗。氯胺酮可能会增加严重不良事件的发生,但证据非常不确定。
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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.
×
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