腰椎神经根麻醉或镇痛前的术前超声是否能提高肥胖症成人的首次手术成功率?系统综述。

IF 2.1 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Aaron K. Khoo, Annie Huynh, Anita Pelecanos, Victoria A. Eley
{"title":"腰椎神经根麻醉或镇痛前的术前超声是否能提高肥胖症成人的首次手术成功率?系统综述。","authors":"Aaron K. Khoo,&nbsp;Annie Huynh,&nbsp;Anita Pelecanos,&nbsp;Victoria A. Eley","doi":"10.1002/hsr2.70039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background and Aims</h3>\n \n <p>Preprocedural ultrasound (PPU) reduces the risk of technical failure in non-obese patients and when technical difficulty is predicted. We conducted this review to determine if PPU improves first-pass needle insertion success for neuraxial anesthesia in patients with obesity.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a systematic review without meta-analysis, due to the small number of included studies. The study protocol was registered (PROSPERO: CRD42022368271). We conducted searches in MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library from January 1, 1980 to October 1, 2022 for peer-reviewed randomized controlled or observational studies comparing PPU versus landmark techniques in patients with body mass index &gt;30 kg/m<sup>2</sup>. The quality of evidence was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>There were nine randomized controlled studies, comprising 866 patients having lumbo-sacral neuraxial techniques. Three studies utilized a small handheld ultrasound device called Accuro™ and six utilized non-handheld ultrasound devices. Certainty of evidence was low for improving the first-pass success rate. There was evidence (moderate certainty) that PPU decreased number of passes, increased first insertion attempt success, and reduced number of insertion attempts. There was no evidence that PPU affected identifying time, needling time, or overall procedural time. There was no evidence that PPU influenced procedural failure rate (very low certainty evidence) and insufficient evidence to suggest that artificial intelligence-supported handheld devices were superior to conventional ultrasound devices.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>In patients with obesity, there is evidence of very-low to moderate certainty that PPU improves markers of insertion success, with no indication of increased adverse effects. PPU should be used to reduce attempts. Further studies adhering to standardized outcome definitions are required for definitive recommendations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Registration</h3>\n \n <p>The study protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42022368271).</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36518,"journal":{"name":"Health Science Reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11539018/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does preprocedural ultrasound prior to lumbar neuraxial anesthesia or analgesia increase first-pass success in adults with obesity? A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Aaron K. Khoo,&nbsp;Annie Huynh,&nbsp;Anita Pelecanos,&nbsp;Victoria A. Eley\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/hsr2.70039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background and Aims</h3>\\n \\n <p>Preprocedural ultrasound (PPU) reduces the risk of technical failure in non-obese patients and when technical difficulty is predicted. We conducted this review to determine if PPU improves first-pass needle insertion success for neuraxial anesthesia in patients with obesity.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We conducted a systematic review without meta-analysis, due to the small number of included studies. The study protocol was registered (PROSPERO: CRD42022368271). We conducted searches in MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library from January 1, 1980 to October 1, 2022 for peer-reviewed randomized controlled or observational studies comparing PPU versus landmark techniques in patients with body mass index &gt;30 kg/m<sup>2</sup>. The quality of evidence was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>There were nine randomized controlled studies, comprising 866 patients having lumbo-sacral neuraxial techniques. Three studies utilized a small handheld ultrasound device called Accuro™ and six utilized non-handheld ultrasound devices. Certainty of evidence was low for improving the first-pass success rate. There was evidence (moderate certainty) that PPU decreased number of passes, increased first insertion attempt success, and reduced number of insertion attempts. There was no evidence that PPU affected identifying time, needling time, or overall procedural time. There was no evidence that PPU influenced procedural failure rate (very low certainty evidence) and insufficient evidence to suggest that artificial intelligence-supported handheld devices were superior to conventional ultrasound devices.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>In patients with obesity, there is evidence of very-low to moderate certainty that PPU improves markers of insertion success, with no indication of increased adverse effects. PPU should be used to reduce attempts. Further studies adhering to standardized outcome definitions are required for definitive recommendations.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Registration</h3>\\n \\n <p>The study protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42022368271).</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36518,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Science Reports\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11539018/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Science Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hsr2.70039\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Science Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hsr2.70039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:术前超声(PPU)可降低非肥胖患者和预知技术难度患者的技术失败风险。我们进行了这项综述,以确定 PPU 是否能提高肥胖患者神经麻醉的首次穿刺针插入成功率:由于纳入的研究数量较少,我们只进行了系统综述,未进行荟萃分析。研究方案已注册(PROSPERO:CRD42022368271)。我们从 1980 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 10 月 1 日在 MEDLINE、Embase、PubMed 和 Cochrane Library 中检索了同行评议的随机对照研究或观察性研究,这些研究对体重指数大于 30 kg/m2 的患者进行了 PPU 与地标技术的比较。采用修订后的 Cochrane 随机试验偏倚风险工具和建议分级评估、制定和评价方法对证据质量进行了评估:结果:共有九项随机对照研究,866 名患者接受了腔骶神经穿刺技术。三项研究使用了一种名为 Accuro™ 的小型手持式超声设备,六项研究使用了非手持式超声设备。提高首次成功率的证据确定性较低。有证据(中等确定性)表明,PPU 减少了插入次数,提高了首次插入成功率,并减少了插入尝试次数。没有证据表明 PPU 会影响识别时间、针刺时间或整个手术时间。没有证据表明PPU影响了手术失败率(确定性极低的证据),也没有足够的证据表明人工智能支持的手持设备优于传统的超声设备:结论:在肥胖症患者中,有极低至中度确定性的证据表明,PPU能提高插入成功率,但没有迹象表明不良反应会增加。应使用 PPU 减少尝试。需要进一步开展符合标准化结果定义的研究,才能提出明确的建议:该研究方案已在国际系统综述前瞻性注册中心(PROSPERO:CRD42022368271)注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does preprocedural ultrasound prior to lumbar neuraxial anesthesia or analgesia increase first-pass success in adults with obesity? A systematic review

Background and Aims

Preprocedural ultrasound (PPU) reduces the risk of technical failure in non-obese patients and when technical difficulty is predicted. We conducted this review to determine if PPU improves first-pass needle insertion success for neuraxial anesthesia in patients with obesity.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review without meta-analysis, due to the small number of included studies. The study protocol was registered (PROSPERO: CRD42022368271). We conducted searches in MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library from January 1, 1980 to October 1, 2022 for peer-reviewed randomized controlled or observational studies comparing PPU versus landmark techniques in patients with body mass index >30 kg/m2. The quality of evidence was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

Results

There were nine randomized controlled studies, comprising 866 patients having lumbo-sacral neuraxial techniques. Three studies utilized a small handheld ultrasound device called Accuro™ and six utilized non-handheld ultrasound devices. Certainty of evidence was low for improving the first-pass success rate. There was evidence (moderate certainty) that PPU decreased number of passes, increased first insertion attempt success, and reduced number of insertion attempts. There was no evidence that PPU affected identifying time, needling time, or overall procedural time. There was no evidence that PPU influenced procedural failure rate (very low certainty evidence) and insufficient evidence to suggest that artificial intelligence-supported handheld devices were superior to conventional ultrasound devices.

Conclusions

In patients with obesity, there is evidence of very-low to moderate certainty that PPU improves markers of insertion success, with no indication of increased adverse effects. PPU should be used to reduce attempts. Further studies adhering to standardized outcome definitions are required for definitive recommendations.

Registration

The study protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42022368271).

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
Health Science Reports
Health Science Reports Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
458
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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