锯肌前平面阻滞与椎旁和肋间阻滞对术后疼痛控制的疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Ping Qian, Xiaoyu Zheng, Huaying Wei, Kemin Ji
{"title":"锯肌前平面阻滞与椎旁和肋间阻滞对术后疼痛控制的疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ping Qian, Xiaoyu Zheng, Huaying Wei, Kemin Ji","doi":"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Our study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of serratus anterior plane block (SAB) with the paravertebral block (PVB) and intercostal block (ICB) for patients undergoing surgical procedures.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A literature search was performed on the databases of ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Embase from inception to October 24, 2021. Only randomized controlled trials comparing SAB with either PVB or ICB and reporting pain outcomes were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 16 randomized controlled trials were included. Thirteen compared SAB with PVB and 3 with ICB. Comparing SAB with PVB, we noted no difference in 24-hour morphine consumption between the groups (mean difference: 1.37; 95% CI: -0.33, 3.08; I2 = 96%; P = 0.11). However, the exclusion of 1 study indicated significantly increased analgesic consumption with the SAB. No difference was found in pain scores between SAB and PVB at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours. Meta-analysis failed to demonstrate any statistically significant difference in time to the first analgesic request between the two groups (mean difference: -0.79; 95% CI: -0.17, 1.75; I2 = 94%; P = 0.11). We also noted no statistically significant difference in the incidence of nausea/vomiting with SAB or PVB (odds ratio: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.41, 1.51; I2 = 0%; P = 0.47).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Evidence on the analgesic efficacy of the SAB versus the PVB is conflicting. Twenty-four-hour total analgesic consumption may be higher with the SAB as compared with PVB but with no difference in pain scores and time to the first analgesic request. Data on the comparison of the SAB with the ICB is insufficient to draw strong conclusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":50678,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of Pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of Serratus Anterior Plane Block Versus Paravertebral and Intercostal Blocks for Pain Control After Surgery:: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ping Qian, Xiaoyu Zheng, Huaying Wei, Kemin Ji\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001175\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Our study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of serratus anterior plane block (SAB) with the paravertebral block (PVB) and intercostal block (ICB) for patients undergoing surgical procedures.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A literature search was performed on the databases of ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Embase from inception to October 24, 2021. Only randomized controlled trials comparing SAB with either PVB or ICB and reporting pain outcomes were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 16 randomized controlled trials were included. Thirteen compared SAB with PVB and 3 with ICB. Comparing SAB with PVB, we noted no difference in 24-hour morphine consumption between the groups (mean difference: 1.37; 95% CI: -0.33, 3.08; I2 = 96%; P = 0.11). However, the exclusion of 1 study indicated significantly increased analgesic consumption with the SAB. No difference was found in pain scores between SAB and PVB at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours. Meta-analysis failed to demonstrate any statistically significant difference in time to the first analgesic request between the two groups (mean difference: -0.79; 95% CI: -0.17, 1.75; I2 = 94%; P = 0.11). We also noted no statistically significant difference in the incidence of nausea/vomiting with SAB or PVB (odds ratio: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.41, 1.51; I2 = 0%; P = 0.47).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Evidence on the analgesic efficacy of the SAB versus the PVB is conflicting. Twenty-four-hour total analgesic consumption may be higher with the SAB as compared with PVB but with no difference in pain scores and time to the first analgesic request. Data on the comparison of the SAB with the ICB is insufficient to draw strong conclusions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50678,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001175\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001175","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较锯肌前平面阻滞(SAB)与椎旁阻滞(PVB)和肋间阻滞(ICB)对外科手术患者的镇痛效果。材料和方法:在ScienceDirect、谷歌Scholar、PubMed和Embase数据库中进行了广泛的文献检索,检索时间为成立至2021年10月24日。仅纳入比较SAB与PVB或ICB并报告疼痛结果的随机对照试验(rct)。结果:共纳入16项rct。SAB与PVB比较13例,与ICB比较3例。比较SAB组与PVB组,我们发现两组24小时吗啡用量无差异(MD: 1.37, 95% CI: -0.33, 3.08 I2=96%, P=0.11)。然而,一项研究的排除表明SAB显著增加了镇痛药的使用。SAB和PVB在2、4、6、8、12和24小时的疼痛评分无差异。meta分析未显示两组患者在首次镇痛要求时间(TFAR)上有统计学差异(MD: -0.79, 95% CI: -0.17, 1.75 I2=94%, P=0.11)。我们还注意到SAB或PVB患者恶心/呕吐的发生率无统计学差异(or: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.41, 1.51 I2=0%, P=0.47)。结论:关于SAB和PVB镇痛效果的证据是相互矛盾的。与PVB相比,SAB组的24小时总镇痛消耗(TAC)可能更高,但疼痛评分和TFAR没有差异。关于SAB与ICB比较的数据很少,无法得出强有力的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy of Serratus Anterior Plane Block Versus Paravertebral and Intercostal Blocks for Pain Control After Surgery:: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Objective: Our study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of serratus anterior plane block (SAB) with the paravertebral block (PVB) and intercostal block (ICB) for patients undergoing surgical procedures.

Materials and methods: A literature search was performed on the databases of ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Embase from inception to October 24, 2021. Only randomized controlled trials comparing SAB with either PVB or ICB and reporting pain outcomes were included.

Results: A total of 16 randomized controlled trials were included. Thirteen compared SAB with PVB and 3 with ICB. Comparing SAB with PVB, we noted no difference in 24-hour morphine consumption between the groups (mean difference: 1.37; 95% CI: -0.33, 3.08; I2 = 96%; P = 0.11). However, the exclusion of 1 study indicated significantly increased analgesic consumption with the SAB. No difference was found in pain scores between SAB and PVB at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours. Meta-analysis failed to demonstrate any statistically significant difference in time to the first analgesic request between the two groups (mean difference: -0.79; 95% CI: -0.17, 1.75; I2 = 94%; P = 0.11). We also noted no statistically significant difference in the incidence of nausea/vomiting with SAB or PVB (odds ratio: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.41, 1.51; I2 = 0%; P = 0.47).

Conclusions: Evidence on the analgesic efficacy of the SAB versus the PVB is conflicting. Twenty-four-hour total analgesic consumption may be higher with the SAB as compared with PVB but with no difference in pain scores and time to the first analgesic request. Data on the comparison of the SAB with the ICB is insufficient to draw strong conclusions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Journal of Pain
Clinical Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
118
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​The Clinical Journal of Pain explores all aspects of pain and its effective treatment, bringing readers the insights of leading anesthesiologists, surgeons, internists, neurologists, orthopedists, psychiatrists and psychologists, clinical pharmacologists, and rehabilitation medicine specialists. This peer-reviewed journal presents timely and thought-provoking articles on clinical dilemmas in pain management; valuable diagnostic procedures; promising new pharmacological, surgical, and other therapeutic modalities; psychosocial dimensions of pain; and ethical issues of concern to all medical professionals. The journal also publishes Special Topic issues on subjects of particular relevance to the practice of pain medicine.
×
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