Bart Gerard Jan Candel, Laura N Visser, Ewoud Ter Avest, Milan L Ridderikhof, Bas De Groot, Rens Jacobs, Saskia Weltings, Rolf H H Groenwold, Leti van Bodegom, Wilbert B van den Hout, Marleen Kemper, Markus W Hollmann
{"title":"竖脊肌平面阻滞治疗肾绞痛的疗效：系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Bart Gerard Jan Candel, Laura N Visser, Ewoud Ter Avest, Milan L Ridderikhof, Bas De Groot, Rens Jacobs, Saskia Weltings, Rolf H H Groenwold, Leti van Bodegom, Wilbert B van den Hout, Marleen Kemper, Markus W Hollmann","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2024-214321","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>The passage of kidney stones through the ureter creates renal colic, a severe visceral abdominal pain. Renal colic is typically managed with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids. Yet, these treatments often fail to provide adequate pain relief. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has emerged as a potential alternative treatment. This systematic review summarises the current body of evidence on the efficacy and safety of ESPB for renal colic in the ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and case series of ESPB in ED patients were conducted. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and ClinicalTrial.gov databases were electronically searched up to 10 June 2024, for studies that compared ESPB with standard care or placebo. The Cochrane risk of bias-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis using a random effects model was performed if two or more studies reported the same outcome. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four studies were included, including two RCTs and two case series. A total of 53 patients received an ESPB, compared with 40 patients who received standard care. All studies were rated as having a high overall risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed a large and significant effect of ESPB on pain reduction after 30 min (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.41 95% CI -1.90 to -0.91) and after 60 min (SMD -1.94 95% CI -3.36 to -0.52), however the level of evidence was downgraded to very low certainty due to substantial heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup>=85%), serious concerns of bias and large imprecision. Heterogeneity in other outcome measurements precluded meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although statistically significant, there is a low certainty regarding the positive effect of ESPB on pain reduction for renal colic in the ED. High-quality RCTs focusing on patient-reported outcomes are needed to establish the merit of ESPB for this indication.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42024554077.</p>","PeriodicalId":11532,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of an erector spinae plane block for renal colic: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Bart Gerard Jan Candel, Laura N Visser, Ewoud Ter Avest, Milan L Ridderikhof, Bas De Groot, Rens Jacobs, Saskia Weltings, Rolf H H Groenwold, Leti van Bodegom, Wilbert B van den Hout, Marleen Kemper, Markus W Hollmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/emermed-2024-214321\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>The passage of kidney stones through the ureter creates renal colic, a severe visceral abdominal pain. Renal colic is typically managed with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids. Yet, these treatments often fail to provide adequate pain relief. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has emerged as a potential alternative treatment. This systematic review summarises the current body of evidence on the efficacy and safety of ESPB for renal colic in the ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and case series of ESPB in ED patients were conducted. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and ClinicalTrial.gov databases were electronically searched up to 10 June 2024, for studies that compared ESPB with standard care or placebo. The Cochrane risk of bias-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis using a random effects model was performed if two or more studies reported the same outcome. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four studies were included, including two RCTs and two case series. A total of 53 patients received an ESPB, compared with 40 patients who received standard care. All studies were rated as having a high overall risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed a large and significant effect of ESPB on pain reduction after 30 min (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.41 95% CI -1.90 to -0.91) and after 60 min (SMD -1.94 95% CI -3.36 to -0.52), however the level of evidence was downgraded to very low certainty due to substantial heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup>=85%), serious concerns of bias and large imprecision. Heterogeneity in other outcome measurements precluded meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although statistically significant, there is a low certainty regarding the positive effect of ESPB on pain reduction for renal colic in the ED. High-quality RCTs focusing on patient-reported outcomes are needed to establish the merit of ESPB for this indication.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42024554077.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergency Medicine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergency Medicine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2024-214321\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2024-214321","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Efficacy of an erector spinae plane block for renal colic: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Background and aim: The passage of kidney stones through the ureter creates renal colic, a severe visceral abdominal pain. Renal colic is typically managed with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids. Yet, these treatments often fail to provide adequate pain relief. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has emerged as a potential alternative treatment. This systematic review summarises the current body of evidence on the efficacy and safety of ESPB for renal colic in the ED.
Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and case series of ESPB in ED patients were conducted. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and ClinicalTrial.gov databases were electronically searched up to 10 June 2024, for studies that compared ESPB with standard care or placebo. The Cochrane risk of bias-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis using a random effects model was performed if two or more studies reported the same outcome. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.
Results: Four studies were included, including two RCTs and two case series. A total of 53 patients received an ESPB, compared with 40 patients who received standard care. All studies were rated as having a high overall risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed a large and significant effect of ESPB on pain reduction after 30 min (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.41 95% CI -1.90 to -0.91) and after 60 min (SMD -1.94 95% CI -3.36 to -0.52), however the level of evidence was downgraded to very low certainty due to substantial heterogeneity (I2=85%), serious concerns of bias and large imprecision. Heterogeneity in other outcome measurements precluded meta-analysis.
Conclusions: Although statistically significant, there is a low certainty regarding the positive effect of ESPB on pain reduction for renal colic in the ED. High-quality RCTs focusing on patient-reported outcomes are needed to establish the merit of ESPB for this indication.
期刊介绍：
The Emergency Medicine Journal is a leading international journal reporting developments and advances in emergency medicine and acute care. It has relevance to all specialties involved in the management of emergencies in the hospital and prehospital environment. Each issue contains editorials, reviews, original research, evidence based reviews, letters and more.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
