Angelica Hanna, James Jacob Armstrong, Efstathia Tsioros, Guillermo Rocha, Cindy M L Hutnik, Iqbal Ike K Ahmed
{"title":"白内障手术的静脉镇静与非静脉镇静:系统回顾和Meta分析。","authors":"Angelica Hanna, James Jacob Armstrong, Efstathia Tsioros, Guillermo Rocha, Cindy M L Hutnik, Iqbal Ike K Ahmed","doi":"10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Topic: </strong>This review assesses the effectiveness of intravenous sedation compared to non-intravenous sedation for routine cataract surgery.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Cataract surgery is a safe and routinely performed surgery. Sedation practices vary, with centers providing either intravenous (IV), oral or no sedation for surgery. Improving sedation practices may have significant implications for patient safety, patient experience and health system efficiency.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, BIOSIS, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched from inception to July 2024 for relevant articles containing original data. Randomized controlled trials that compared IV to oral or no sedation and 1) used a validated pain scale to report on pain or 2) reported on perioperative complications were included. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted. Odds ratios, standard mean differences, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 statistics were reported. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024582495) and PRISMA guidelines were followed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>12 randomized controlled trials including 1130 patients were included in the meta-analysis. IV sedation was associated with significantly decreased pain compared to no sedation (SMD = -0.98, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.29). Comparing IV and oral sedation, however, there was no difference in patient reported pain (SMD = -0.54, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.52). Analysis of intraoperative complications showed that there was no significant difference in complications between patients receiving IV and oral sedation (OR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.73).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For routine cataract surgery, IV sedation was associated with less pain than no sedation, but oral and IV sedation provided comparable pain control. Perioperative complications occur at similar rates regardless of sedation modality. These findings may help to inform sedation practices for cataract surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":15214,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intravenous versus Non-intravenous Sedation for Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Angelica Hanna, James Jacob Armstrong, Efstathia Tsioros, Guillermo Rocha, Cindy M L Hutnik, Iqbal Ike K Ahmed\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001679\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Topic: </strong>This review assesses the effectiveness of intravenous sedation compared to non-intravenous sedation for routine cataract surgery.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Cataract surgery is a safe and routinely performed surgery. Sedation practices vary, with centers providing either intravenous (IV), oral or no sedation for surgery. Improving sedation practices may have significant implications for patient safety, patient experience and health system efficiency.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, BIOSIS, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched from inception to July 2024 for relevant articles containing original data. Randomized controlled trials that compared IV to oral or no sedation and 1) used a validated pain scale to report on pain or 2) reported on perioperative complications were included. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted. Odds ratios, standard mean differences, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 statistics were reported. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024582495) and PRISMA guidelines were followed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>12 randomized controlled trials including 1130 patients were included in the meta-analysis. IV sedation was associated with significantly decreased pain compared to no sedation (SMD = -0.98, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.29). Comparing IV and oral sedation, however, there was no difference in patient reported pain (SMD = -0.54, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.52). Analysis of intraoperative complications showed that there was no significant difference in complications between patients receiving IV and oral sedation (OR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.73).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For routine cataract surgery, IV sedation was associated with less pain than no sedation, but oral and IV sedation provided comparable pain control. Perioperative complications occur at similar rates regardless of sedation modality. These findings may help to inform sedation practices for cataract surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001679\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001679","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
主题:本综述比较了常规白内障手术中静脉镇静与非静脉镇静的效果。临床意义:白内障手术是一种安全的常规手术。镇静方法各不相同,各中心为手术提供静脉注射、口服或不使用镇静。改善镇静做法可能对患者安全、患者体验和卫生系统效率有重大影响。方法:检索Medline、Embase、Cochrane Library、BIOSIS、Web of Science和CINAHL自成立至2024年7月的相关文献,检索包含原始数据的文章。随机对照试验比较静脉注射与口服或不使用镇静,1)使用有效的疼痛量表报告疼痛或2)报告围手术期并发症。随机效应荟萃分析。比值比、标准均值差、95%置信区间(ci)和I2统计量均有报告。该综述已在PROSPERO注册(CRD42024582495),并遵循PRISMA指南。结果:meta分析纳入12项随机对照试验,共1130例患者。与不镇静相比,静脉镇静与疼痛显著减轻相关(SMD = -0.98, 95% CI -1.68至-0.29)。然而,与静脉镇静和口服镇静相比,患者报告的疼痛没有差异(SMD = -0.54, 95% CI -1.60至0.52)。术中并发症分析显示,静脉镇静组与口服镇静组的并发症无显著差异(OR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.27 ~ 1.73)。结论:对于常规白内障手术,静脉镇静与不镇静相比疼痛减轻,但口服和静脉镇静的疼痛控制效果相当。无论镇静方式如何,围手术期并发症的发生率相似。这些发现可能有助于白内障手术的镇静治疗。
Intravenous versus Non-intravenous Sedation for Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.
Topic: This review assesses the effectiveness of intravenous sedation compared to non-intravenous sedation for routine cataract surgery.
Clinical relevance: Cataract surgery is a safe and routinely performed surgery. Sedation practices vary, with centers providing either intravenous (IV), oral or no sedation for surgery. Improving sedation practices may have significant implications for patient safety, patient experience and health system efficiency.
Methods: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, BIOSIS, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched from inception to July 2024 for relevant articles containing original data. Randomized controlled trials that compared IV to oral or no sedation and 1) used a validated pain scale to report on pain or 2) reported on perioperative complications were included. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted. Odds ratios, standard mean differences, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 statistics were reported. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024582495) and PRISMA guidelines were followed.
Results: 12 randomized controlled trials including 1130 patients were included in the meta-analysis. IV sedation was associated with significantly decreased pain compared to no sedation (SMD = -0.98, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.29). Comparing IV and oral sedation, however, there was no difference in patient reported pain (SMD = -0.54, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.52). Analysis of intraoperative complications showed that there was no significant difference in complications between patients receiving IV and oral sedation (OR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.73).
Conclusion: For routine cataract surgery, IV sedation was associated with less pain than no sedation, but oral and IV sedation provided comparable pain control. Perioperative complications occur at similar rates regardless of sedation modality. These findings may help to inform sedation practices for cataract surgery.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery (JCRS), a preeminent peer-reviewed monthly ophthalmology publication, is the official journal of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) and the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS).
JCRS publishes high quality articles on all aspects of anterior segment surgery. In addition to original clinical studies, the journal features a consultation section, practical techniques, important cases, and reviews as well as basic science articles.