基于超声波的 Accuro 系统与传统的神经麻醉触诊技术:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.2 Q3 SURGERY
Journal of perioperative practice Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-27 DOI:10.1177/17504589231215927
Mahfouz Sharapi, Eslam Afifi, Aya Mustafa Al Mawla, Mazen Negmeldin Aly Yassin, Sara Adel Awwad, Mohamed El-Samahy
{"title":"基于超声波的 Accuro 系统与传统的神经麻醉触诊技术:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Mahfouz Sharapi, Eslam Afifi, Aya Mustafa Al Mawla, Mazen Negmeldin Aly Yassin, Sara Adel Awwad, Mohamed El-Samahy","doi":"10.1177/17504589231215927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This review evaluates the efficacy and safety of Accuro, a handheld ultrasound device, compared to the palpation technique for neuraxial anaesthesia. Accuro provides real-time imaging guidance, potentially improving accuracy and efficiency.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search across six electronic databases identified randomised clinical trials comparing Accuro with palpation for neuraxial anaesthesia. Risk ratios or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Bias risk was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five studies (n=369) met the inclusion criteria. Accuro showed a favourable risk ratio for first insertion success (1.44 [95% CI [1.01, 2.05], p=0.05]). It significantly reduced needle skin passes (MD -0.63; 95% CI [-1.05, -0.21]; p<0.01), but not needle redirection (MD -1.31; 95% CI [-2.71, 0.11]; p=0.07). Procedure time was shorter in palpation (MD 127.82; 95% CI [8.68, -246.97]; p=0.04). Four studies had a low risk of bias; one had some concerns.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Accuro can potentially improve success rates and reduce skin passes in neuraxial anaesthesia. Further trials with larger samples are needed, especially in patients with anticipated difficulties.</p>","PeriodicalId":35481,"journal":{"name":"Journal of perioperative practice","volume":" ","pages":"60-69"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ultrasound-based Accuro system versus traditional palpation technique for neuraxial anaesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Mahfouz Sharapi, Eslam Afifi, Aya Mustafa Al Mawla, Mazen Negmeldin Aly Yassin, Sara Adel Awwad, Mohamed El-Samahy\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17504589231215927\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This review evaluates the efficacy and safety of Accuro, a handheld ultrasound device, compared to the palpation technique for neuraxial anaesthesia. Accuro provides real-time imaging guidance, potentially improving accuracy and efficiency.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search across six electronic databases identified randomised clinical trials comparing Accuro with palpation for neuraxial anaesthesia. Risk ratios or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Bias risk was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five studies (n=369) met the inclusion criteria. Accuro showed a favourable risk ratio for first insertion success (1.44 [95% CI [1.01, 2.05], p=0.05]). It significantly reduced needle skin passes (MD -0.63; 95% CI [-1.05, -0.21]; p<0.01), but not needle redirection (MD -1.31; 95% CI [-2.71, 0.11]; p=0.07). Procedure time was shorter in palpation (MD 127.82; 95% CI [8.68, -246.97]; p=0.04). Four studies had a low risk of bias; one had some concerns.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Accuro can potentially improve success rates and reduce skin passes in neuraxial anaesthesia. Further trials with larger samples are needed, especially in patients with anticipated difficulties.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35481,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of perioperative practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"60-69\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of perioperative practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17504589231215927\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of perioperative practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17504589231215927","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:本综述评估了手持式超声设备 Accuro 与神经麻醉触诊技术相比的有效性和安全性。Accuro 可提供实时成像指导,从而提高准确性和效率:方法:通过对六个电子数据库的全面检索,确定了将 Accuro 与神经麻醉触诊法进行比较的随机临床试验。采用随机效应模型计算风险比或平均差异及 95% 置信区间 (CI)。使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险:五项研究(n=369)符合纳入标准。Accuro显示了首次插入成功的有利风险比(1.44 [95% CI [1.01, 2.05], p=0.05])。它大大减少了针头的皮肤穿刺次数(MD -0.63;95% CI [-1.05,-0.21];p 结论:Accuro 有可能提高神经麻醉的成功率并减少皮肤穿刺次数。需要进行更多样本的进一步试验,尤其是在预期有困难的患者中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ultrasound-based Accuro system versus traditional palpation technique for neuraxial anaesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Introduction: This review evaluates the efficacy and safety of Accuro, a handheld ultrasound device, compared to the palpation technique for neuraxial anaesthesia. Accuro provides real-time imaging guidance, potentially improving accuracy and efficiency.

Methods: A comprehensive search across six electronic databases identified randomised clinical trials comparing Accuro with palpation for neuraxial anaesthesia. Risk ratios or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Bias risk was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

Results: Five studies (n=369) met the inclusion criteria. Accuro showed a favourable risk ratio for first insertion success (1.44 [95% CI [1.01, 2.05], p=0.05]). It significantly reduced needle skin passes (MD -0.63; 95% CI [-1.05, -0.21]; p<0.01), but not needle redirection (MD -1.31; 95% CI [-2.71, 0.11]; p=0.07). Procedure time was shorter in palpation (MD 127.82; 95% CI [8.68, -246.97]; p=0.04). Four studies had a low risk of bias; one had some concerns.

Conclusion: Accuro can potentially improve success rates and reduce skin passes in neuraxial anaesthesia. Further trials with larger samples are needed, especially in patients with anticipated difficulties.

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
Journal of perioperative practice
Journal of perioperative practice Nursing-Medical and Surgical Nursing
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: The Journal of Perioperative Practice (JPP) is the official journal of the Association for Perioperative Practice (AfPP). It is an international, peer reviewed journal with a multidisciplinary ethos across all aspects of perioperative care. The overall aim of the journal is to improve patient safety through informing and developing practice. It is an informative professional journal which provides current evidence-based practice, clinical, management and educational developments for practitioners working in the perioperative environment. The journal promotes perioperative practice by publishing clinical research-based articles, literature reviews, topical discussions, advice on clinical issues, current news items and product information.
×
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