对于接受乳房手术的患者,椎旁阻滞并不优于胸间和胸锯肌平面阻滞:一项最新的随机对照试验荟萃分析,采用荟萃回归和试验序列分析。

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1097/EJA.0000000000002148
Burhan Dost, Dario Bugada, Yunus Emre Karapinar, Eleonora Balzani, Muzeyyen Beldagli, Giulia Aviani Fulvio, Mirac Selcen Ozkal Yalin, Esra Turunc, Nicolò Sella, Alessandro De Cassai
{"title":"对于接受乳房手术的患者,椎旁阻滞并不优于胸间和胸锯肌平面阻滞:一项最新的随机对照试验荟萃分析,采用荟萃回归和试验序列分析。","authors":"Burhan Dost, Dario Bugada, Yunus Emre Karapinar, Eleonora Balzani, Muzeyyen Beldagli, Giulia Aviani Fulvio, Mirac Selcen Ozkal Yalin, Esra Turunc, Nicolò Sella, Alessandro De Cassai","doi":"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Breast surgery is frequently associated with significant acute postoperative pain, necessitating effective pain management strategies. Both thoracic paravertebral block (PVB) and interpectoral plane and pectoserratus plane (IP+PS) blocks have been used to relieve pain after breast surgery.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis, we aimed to identify the optimal analgesic technique for achieving effective pain relief in breast surgery. The primary outcome of this study was postoperative opioid consumption expressed as morphine milligram equivalent (MME) at 24 h. Secondary outcomes included resting and movement pain scores at 0, 6, 12 and 24 h, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and rescue analgesic requirements within the first 24 h.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis (TSA).</p><p><strong>Data search: </strong>We systematically searched Pubmed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Google Scholar, Medline (from inception to until 1 October 2024).</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>RCTs that include patients undergoing breast surgery with PVB or IP+PS block, with no language restriction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen RCTs with 924 patients were included. No significant difference in MME consumption at 24 h was observed between the two techniques; mean difference (MD) -1.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.27 to 0.38, P = 0.101). Subgroup analyses revealed a minor advantage for IP+PS in patients without axillary involvement; MD -2.42 (95% CI -3.56 to -1.29, P  < 0.001), though below the threshold of clinical significance. Secondary outcomes, including pain scores, PONV incidence and rescue analgesic requirements were comparable. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) confirmed sufficient sample size, suggesting further studies may not alter conclusions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PVB and IP+PS blocks offer comparable analgesic efficacy and opioid-sparing effects after breast surgery, with no meaningful differences in 24-h MME consumption, pain scores, or PONV incidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":11920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":"637-648"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Paravertebral block is not superior to the interpectoral and pectoserratus plane block for patients undergoing breast surgery: An updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Burhan Dost, Dario Bugada, Yunus Emre Karapinar, Eleonora Balzani, Muzeyyen Beldagli, Giulia Aviani Fulvio, Mirac Selcen Ozkal Yalin, Esra Turunc, Nicolò Sella, Alessandro De Cassai\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002148\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Breast surgery is frequently associated with significant acute postoperative pain, necessitating effective pain management strategies. Both thoracic paravertebral block (PVB) and interpectoral plane and pectoserratus plane (IP+PS) blocks have been used to relieve pain after breast surgery.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis, we aimed to identify the optimal analgesic technique for achieving effective pain relief in breast surgery. The primary outcome of this study was postoperative opioid consumption expressed as morphine milligram equivalent (MME) at 24 h. Secondary outcomes included resting and movement pain scores at 0, 6, 12 and 24 h, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and rescue analgesic requirements within the first 24 h.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis (TSA).</p><p><strong>Data search: </strong>We systematically searched Pubmed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Google Scholar, Medline (from inception to until 1 October 2024).</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>RCTs that include patients undergoing breast surgery with PVB or IP+PS block, with no language restriction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen RCTs with 924 patients were included. No significant difference in MME consumption at 24 h was observed between the two techniques; mean difference (MD) -1.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.27 to 0.38, P = 0.101). Subgroup analyses revealed a minor advantage for IP+PS in patients without axillary involvement; MD -2.42 (95% CI -3.56 to -1.29, P  < 0.001), though below the threshold of clinical significance. Secondary outcomes, including pain scores, PONV incidence and rescue analgesic requirements were comparable. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) confirmed sufficient sample size, suggesting further studies may not alter conclusions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PVB and IP+PS blocks offer comparable analgesic efficacy and opioid-sparing effects after breast surgery, with no meaningful differences in 24-h MME consumption, pain scores, or PONV incidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11920,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Anaesthesiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"637-648\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Anaesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002148\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002148","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:乳房手术经常伴有明显的术后急性疼痛,需要有效的疼痛管理策略。胸椎旁阻滞(PVB)和胸间平面和胸锯肌平面(IP+PS)阻滞均可用于缓解乳房手术后疼痛。目的:在本系统综述和荟萃分析与试验序列分析中,我们旨在确定最佳的镇痛技术,以实现乳房手术中有效的疼痛缓解。本研究的主要结果是术后24小时阿片类药物消耗,以吗啡毫克当量(MME)表示。次要结局包括0、6、12和24小时的静息和运动疼痛评分,术后恶心和呕吐(PONV),以及前24小时内的救援镇痛需求。设计:采用meta回归和试验序列分析(TSA)对随机对照试验(rct)进行荟萃分析。资料检索:系统检索Pubmed、Scopus、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central)、Web of Science、谷歌Scholar、Medline(从成立到2024年10月1日)。入选标准:随机对照试验包括接受PVB或IP+PS阻滞的乳房手术患者,无语言限制。结果:纳入18项随机对照试验,924例患者。两种技术在24 h时的MME消耗无显著差异;平均差(MD) -1.94(95%置信区间(CI) -4.27 ~ 0.38, P = 0.101)。亚组分析显示,在未累及腋窝的患者中,IP+PS的优势较小;结论:PVB和IP+PS阻滞在乳房手术后具有相当的镇痛效果和阿片类药物节约效果,在24小时MME消耗、疼痛评分或PONV发生率方面无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Paravertebral block is not superior to the interpectoral and pectoserratus plane block for patients undergoing breast surgery: An updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis.

Background: Breast surgery is frequently associated with significant acute postoperative pain, necessitating effective pain management strategies. Both thoracic paravertebral block (PVB) and interpectoral plane and pectoserratus plane (IP+PS) blocks have been used to relieve pain after breast surgery.

Objective: In this systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis, we aimed to identify the optimal analgesic technique for achieving effective pain relief in breast surgery. The primary outcome of this study was postoperative opioid consumption expressed as morphine milligram equivalent (MME) at 24 h. Secondary outcomes included resting and movement pain scores at 0, 6, 12 and 24 h, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and rescue analgesic requirements within the first 24 h.

Design: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis (TSA).

Data search: We systematically searched Pubmed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Google Scholar, Medline (from inception to until 1 October 2024).

Eligibility criteria: RCTs that include patients undergoing breast surgery with PVB or IP+PS block, with no language restriction.

Results: Eighteen RCTs with 924 patients were included. No significant difference in MME consumption at 24 h was observed between the two techniques; mean difference (MD) -1.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.27 to 0.38, P = 0.101). Subgroup analyses revealed a minor advantage for IP+PS in patients without axillary involvement; MD -2.42 (95% CI -3.56 to -1.29, P  < 0.001), though below the threshold of clinical significance. Secondary outcomes, including pain scores, PONV incidence and rescue analgesic requirements were comparable. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) confirmed sufficient sample size, suggesting further studies may not alter conclusions.

Conclusion: PVB and IP+PS blocks offer comparable analgesic efficacy and opioid-sparing effects after breast surgery, with no meaningful differences in 24-h MME consumption, pain scores, or PONV incidence.

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
6.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
351
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA) publishes original work of high scientific quality in the field of anaesthesiology, pain, emergency medicine and intensive care. Preference is given to experimental work or clinical observation in man, and to laboratory work of clinical relevance. The journal also publishes commissioned reviews by an authority, editorials, invited commentaries, special articles, pro and con debates, and short reports (correspondences, case reports, short reports of clinical studies).
×
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