{"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":" ","pages":"124-134"},"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\":\" \",\"pages\":\"124-134\"},\"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}
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.
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.