与标准布比卡因相比,脂质体对微创胸外科患者肋间神经阻滞的疗效:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Ruliang Chen, Zhibo Wang
{"title":"与标准布比卡因相比,脂质体对微创胸外科患者肋间神经阻滞的疗效:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ruliang Chen, Zhibo Wang","doi":"10.1080/13645706.2024.2440910","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This review aimed to provide evidence on the efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine as compared to standard bupivacaine for intercostal nerve blocks (ICB) in patients undergoing minimally invasive thoracic surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies published on the databases of PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Embase up to June 20, 2024, were included. Total opioid consumption in morphine equivalents, pain scores, and length of hospital stay (LOS) were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two RCTs and eight observational studies were included. Eight hundred and four patients received liposomal bupivacaine while 631 patients received standard bupivacaine in the included studies. The meta-analysis showed that the use of liposomal bupivacaine for ICB did not reduce opioid consumption as compared to standard bupivacaine at 24 h, 48 h, and for the total duration of hospitalization. Pain scores were also not significantly different between the two groups at 24 h and 48 h. Meta-analysis showed that there was no difference in the LOS between intervention and control groups. Subgroup analysis based on study design also generated similar results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Mostly low-quality evidence shows that liposomal bupivacaine does not offer additional benefits over standard bupivacaine when used for ICB in patients undergoing minimally invasive thoracic surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":18537,"journal":{"name":"Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of liposomal as compared to standard bupivacaine for intercostal nerve blocks in patients undergoing minimally invasive thoracic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ruliang Chen, Zhibo Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13645706.2024.2440910\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This review aimed to provide evidence on the efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine as compared to standard bupivacaine for intercostal nerve blocks (ICB) in patients undergoing minimally invasive thoracic surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies published on the databases of PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Embase up to June 20, 2024, were included. Total opioid consumption in morphine equivalents, pain scores, and length of hospital stay (LOS) were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two RCTs and eight observational studies were included. Eight hundred and four patients received liposomal bupivacaine while 631 patients received standard bupivacaine in the included studies. The meta-analysis showed that the use of liposomal bupivacaine for ICB did not reduce opioid consumption as compared to standard bupivacaine at 24 h, 48 h, and for the total duration of hospitalization. Pain scores were also not significantly different between the two groups at 24 h and 48 h. Meta-analysis showed that there was no difference in the LOS between intervention and control groups. Subgroup analysis based on study design also generated similar results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Mostly low-quality evidence shows that liposomal bupivacaine does not offer additional benefits over standard bupivacaine when used for ICB in patients undergoing minimally invasive thoracic surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18537,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2024.2440910\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2024.2440910","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本综述旨在为布比卡因脂质体与标准布比卡因在微创胸外科患者肋间神经阻滞(ICB)中的疗效提供证据。方法:纳入截至2024年6月20日在PubMed、CENTRAL、Web of Science和Embase数据库中发表的随机对照试验(RCTs)和比较观察性研究。比较吗啡当量、疼痛评分和住院时间(LOS)的阿片类药物总消耗量。结果:纳入2项随机对照试验和8项观察性研究。在纳入的研究中,840例患者接受脂质体布比卡因治疗,631例患者接受标准布比卡因治疗。荟萃分析显示,与标准布比卡因相比,在24小时、48小时和总住院时间内,使用布比卡因脂质体治疗ICB并没有减少阿片类药物的消耗。两组在24 h和48 h的疼痛评分也无显著差异。meta分析显示,干预组与对照组的LOS无差异。基于研究设计的亚组分析也产生了类似的结果。结论:大多数低质量的证据表明,在微创胸外科患者中使用脂质体布比卡因治疗ICB时,与标准布比卡因相比,布比卡因没有额外的益处。
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 liposomal as compared to standard bupivacaine for intercostal nerve blocks in patients undergoing minimally invasive thoracic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: This review aimed to provide evidence on the efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine as compared to standard bupivacaine for intercostal nerve blocks (ICB) in patients undergoing minimally invasive thoracic surgery.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies published on the databases of PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Embase up to June 20, 2024, were included. Total opioid consumption in morphine equivalents, pain scores, and length of hospital stay (LOS) were compared.

Results: Two RCTs and eight observational studies were included. Eight hundred and four patients received liposomal bupivacaine while 631 patients received standard bupivacaine in the included studies. The meta-analysis showed that the use of liposomal bupivacaine for ICB did not reduce opioid consumption as compared to standard bupivacaine at 24 h, 48 h, and for the total duration of hospitalization. Pain scores were also not significantly different between the two groups at 24 h and 48 h. Meta-analysis showed that there was no difference in the LOS between intervention and control groups. Subgroup analysis based on study design also generated similar results.

Conclusions: Mostly low-quality evidence shows that liposomal bupivacaine does not offer additional benefits over standard bupivacaine when used for ICB in patients undergoing minimally invasive thoracic surgery.

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
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.90%
发文量
39
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Minimally Invasive Therapy and Allied Technologies (MITAT) is an international forum for endoscopic surgeons, interventional radiologists and industrial instrument manufacturers. It is the official journal of the Society for Medical Innovation and Technology (SMIT) whose membership includes representatives from a broad spectrum of medical specialities, instrument manufacturing and research. The journal brings the latest developments and innovations in minimally invasive therapy to its readers. What makes Minimally Invasive Therapy and Allied Technologies unique is that we publish one or two special issues each year, which are devoted to a specific theme. Key topics covered by the journal include: interventional radiology, endoscopic surgery, imaging technology, manipulators and robotics for surgery and education and training for MIS.
×
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