{"title":"超声引导与解剖标志对成人轴突麻醉的影响。","authors":"Yuto Makino, Kentaro Miyake, David Roche, Satoshi Yoshimura, Isao Nahara, Ethan Sahker, Norio Watanabe","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD014964.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Neuraxial anaesthesia can be difficult to administer successfully, because the targeting space imagined by palpation of anatomical position can deviate from the actual position. Successful neuraxial anaesthesia, with as few punctures as possible, is important to reduce complications and increase patient satisfaction. Neuraxial anaesthesia by ultrasound guidance may be a useful way to increase success rates.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of ultrasound guidance compared with anatomical landmarks for neuraxial anaesthesia in adults.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and two trials registries, together with reference checking and citation searching, to identify studies that are included in the review. After the original search on 11 October 2022, we updated the electronic searches on 28 November 2023.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ultrasound guidance with the use of conventional anatomical landmarks for neuraxial anaesthesia in adults (≥ 18 years). We excluded studies on non-anaesthetic neuraxial procedures, such as lumbar puncture for diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Our critical outcomes were: (1) number of attempts until success or procedure termination; (2) procedure time; and (3) participant satisfaction during the procedure. Our important outcomes were: (1) first-attempt success; (2) technical failure; (3) pain during the procedure; and (4) any adverse events.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias in the included studies for the seven critical and important outcomes.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>We synthesised results for each outcome, where possible, by using a random-effects analytical model. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes, each with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where meta-analysis was not possible due to the nature of the data, we summarised the results narratively. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included a total of 65 studies with 6823 participants. The studies were conducted in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, North America, and Oceania, and were published between 2001 and 2023. Thirty-two studies evaluated obstetric populations undergoing labour epidural or caesarean section (3149 participants); the remaining studies evaluated participants who received surgery under neuraxial anaesthesia. Thirty-three studies evaluated spinal anaesthesia, 15 studies evaluated lumbar epidural anaesthesia, 12 studies evaluated combined spinal and epidural anaesthesia, and the remaining four studies evaluated thoracic epidural anaesthesia. Four studies evaluated real-time ultrasound as an intervention arm. Two studies were three-arm trials, which evaluated pre-procedural ultrasound and real-time ultrasound. For participant satisfaction, a variety of measurement scales were used, so we synthesised participant satisfaction using SMD.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Our meta-analyses demonstrated that compared with anatomical landmarks, ultrasound guidance reduces the number of attempts until success or procedure termination (MD -0.41 attempts, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.31; 57 studies, 6192 participants; high-certainty evidence), and procedure (needling) time (MD -33.8 seconds, 95% CI -47.22 to -20.39; 43 studies, 4178 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ultrasound guidance likely increases the rate of first-attempt success (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.52; 50 studies, 5205 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Ultrasound guidance may result in little to no difference in participant satisfaction (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.35; 25 studies; low-certainty evidence), or in technical failure (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.29; 40 studies, 4581 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of ultrasound guidance on pain during the procedure (MD -0.20 points, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.13; 13 studies, 1532 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and adverse effects (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.03; 15 studies, 1692 participants; very low-certainty evidence).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Compared to anatomical landmarks, ultrasound guidance for neuraxial anaesthesia in adults reduces the number of attempts required for success and reduces procedure (needling) time. It likely increases the rate of first-attempt success. Low-certainty evidence suggests that ultrasound guidance may result in little to no difference in participant satisfaction or technical failure. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ultrasound guidance on pain and adverse events. Although ultrasound guidance can be beneficial for neuraxial anaesthesia without increased risk, these results should be interpreted with caution due to some uncertainties in the evidence.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Protocol available via doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014964.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"5 ","pages":"CD014964"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12107523/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for neuraxial anaesthesia in adults.\",\"authors\":\"Yuto Makino, Kentaro Miyake, David Roche, Satoshi Yoshimura, Isao Nahara, Ethan Sahker, Norio Watanabe\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD014964.pub2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Neuraxial anaesthesia can be difficult to administer successfully, because the targeting space imagined by palpation of anatomical position can deviate from the actual position. Successful neuraxial anaesthesia, with as few punctures as possible, is important to reduce complications and increase patient satisfaction. Neuraxial anaesthesia by ultrasound guidance may be a useful way to increase success rates.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of ultrasound guidance compared with anatomical landmarks for neuraxial anaesthesia in adults.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and two trials registries, together with reference checking and citation searching, to identify studies that are included in the review. After the original search on 11 October 2022, we updated the electronic searches on 28 November 2023.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ultrasound guidance with the use of conventional anatomical landmarks for neuraxial anaesthesia in adults (≥ 18 years). We excluded studies on non-anaesthetic neuraxial procedures, such as lumbar puncture for diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Our critical outcomes were: (1) number of attempts until success or procedure termination; (2) procedure time; and (3) participant satisfaction during the procedure. Our important outcomes were: (1) first-attempt success; (2) technical failure; (3) pain during the procedure; and (4) any adverse events.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias in the included studies for the seven critical and important outcomes.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>We synthesised results for each outcome, where possible, by using a random-effects analytical model. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes, each with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where meta-analysis was not possible due to the nature of the data, we summarised the results narratively. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included a total of 65 studies with 6823 participants. The studies were conducted in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, North America, and Oceania, and were published between 2001 and 2023. Thirty-two studies evaluated obstetric populations undergoing labour epidural or caesarean section (3149 participants); the remaining studies evaluated participants who received surgery under neuraxial anaesthesia. Thirty-three studies evaluated spinal anaesthesia, 15 studies evaluated lumbar epidural anaesthesia, 12 studies evaluated combined spinal and epidural anaesthesia, and the remaining four studies evaluated thoracic epidural anaesthesia. Four studies evaluated real-time ultrasound as an intervention arm. Two studies were three-arm trials, which evaluated pre-procedural ultrasound and real-time ultrasound. For participant satisfaction, a variety of measurement scales were used, so we synthesised participant satisfaction using SMD.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Our meta-analyses demonstrated that compared with anatomical landmarks, ultrasound guidance reduces the number of attempts until success or procedure termination (MD -0.41 attempts, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.31; 57 studies, 6192 participants; high-certainty evidence), and procedure (needling) time (MD -33.8 seconds, 95% CI -47.22 to -20.39; 43 studies, 4178 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ultrasound guidance likely increases the rate of first-attempt success (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.52; 50 studies, 5205 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Ultrasound guidance may result in little to no difference in participant satisfaction (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.35; 25 studies; low-certainty evidence), or in technical failure (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.29; 40 studies, 4581 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of ultrasound guidance on pain during the procedure (MD -0.20 points, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.13; 13 studies, 1532 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and adverse effects (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.03; 15 studies, 1692 participants; very low-certainty evidence).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Compared to anatomical landmarks, ultrasound guidance for neuraxial anaesthesia in adults reduces the number of attempts required for success and reduces procedure (needling) time. It likely increases the rate of first-attempt success. Low-certainty evidence suggests that ultrasound guidance may result in little to no difference in participant satisfaction or technical failure. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ultrasound guidance on pain and adverse events. Although ultrasound guidance can be beneficial for neuraxial anaesthesia without increased risk, these results should be interpreted with caution due to some uncertainties in the evidence.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Protocol available via doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014964.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"CD014964\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12107523/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014964.pub2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014964.pub2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
理由:由于触诊解剖位置想象的目标空间可能偏离实际位置,轴突麻醉很难成功实施。成功的轴突麻醉,尽可能少的穿刺,对于减少并发症和提高患者满意度非常重要。超声引导下的轴突麻醉可能是提高成功率的有效方法。目的:比较超声引导与解剖标志在成人轴突麻醉中的临床疗效和安全性。检索方法:我们检索了CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science和两个试验注册库,并进行了参考文献检查和引文检索,以确定纳入综述的研究。在2022年10月11日的原始检索之后,我们于2023年11月28日更新了电子检索。入选标准:我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCTs),这些试验比较了超声引导与使用传统解剖标志进行成人(≥18岁)轴突麻醉的效果。我们排除了非麻醉的神经轴手术的研究,如腰椎穿刺诊断。结果:我们的关键结果是:(1)成功或手术终止前的尝试次数;(2)办理时间;(3)过程中参与者的满意度。我们的重要结果是:(1)首次尝试成功;(2)技术故障;(3)手术过程中的疼痛;(4)任何不良事件。偏倚风险:我们使用Cochrane RoB 2工具评估纳入研究的七个关键和重要结果的偏倚风险。综合方法:在可能的情况下,我们通过使用随机效应分析模型综合了每个结果的结果。我们计算了二分类结局的风险比(RR),以及连续结局的平均差异(MD)或标准化平均差异(SMD),每个结果都有95%的置信区间(CI)。由于数据的性质而无法进行meta分析,我们对结果进行了叙述性总结。我们使用GRADE来评估每个结果证据的确定性。纳入研究:我们共纳入65项研究,6823名受试者。这些研究在非洲、亚洲、欧洲、中东、北美和大洋洲进行,并于2001年至2023年间发表。32项研究评估了接受硬膜外分娩或剖宫产的产科人群(3149名参与者);其余的研究评估了在轴向麻醉下接受手术的参与者。33项研究评估脊髓麻醉,15项研究评估腰椎硬膜外麻醉,12项研究评估脊髓和硬膜外联合麻醉,其余4项研究评估胸部硬膜外麻醉。四项研究评估实时超声作为干预手段。两项研究为三臂试验,评估术前超声和实时超声。对于参与者满意度,使用了多种测量量表,因此我们使用SMD综合参与者满意度。综合结果:我们的荟萃分析表明,与解剖标志相比,超声引导减少了手术成功或手术终止前的尝试次数(MD -0.41次,95% CI -0.51至-0.31;57项研究,6192名参与者;高确定性证据)和程序(针刺)时间(MD -33.8秒,95% CI -47.22 ~ -20.39;43项研究,4178名参与者;高确定性的证据)。超声引导可能增加首次尝试成功率(RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.29 - 1.52;50项研究,5205名参与者;moderate-certainty证据)。超声引导可能导致参与者满意度几乎没有差异(SMD = 0.16, 95% CI = -0.03 ~ 0.35;25项研究;低确定性证据)或技术故障(RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.62至1.29;40项研究,4581名受试者;确定性的证据)。关于超声引导对手术过程中疼痛的影响,证据非常不确定(MD -0.20分,95% CI -0.52至0.13;13项研究,1532名参与者;极低确定性证据)和不良反应(RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 ~ 1.03;15项研究,1692名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。作者的结论:与解剖标志相比,超声引导成人轴突麻醉减少了成功所需的尝试次数,减少了手术(针刺)时间。这可能会增加第一次尝试的成功率。低确定性证据表明,超声引导可能导致参与者满意度或技术失败的差异很小或没有差异。关于超声引导对疼痛和不良事件的影响,证据非常不确定。尽管超声引导可以在不增加风险的情况下对轴向麻醉有益,但由于证据的不确定性,这些结果应谨慎解释。资金:没有。注册:协议可通过doi.org/10获得。 1002/14651858.CD014964.
Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for neuraxial anaesthesia in adults.
Rationale: Neuraxial anaesthesia can be difficult to administer successfully, because the targeting space imagined by palpation of anatomical position can deviate from the actual position. Successful neuraxial anaesthesia, with as few punctures as possible, is important to reduce complications and increase patient satisfaction. Neuraxial anaesthesia by ultrasound guidance may be a useful way to increase success rates.
Objectives: To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of ultrasound guidance compared with anatomical landmarks for neuraxial anaesthesia in adults.
Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and two trials registries, together with reference checking and citation searching, to identify studies that are included in the review. After the original search on 11 October 2022, we updated the electronic searches on 28 November 2023.
Eligibility criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ultrasound guidance with the use of conventional anatomical landmarks for neuraxial anaesthesia in adults (≥ 18 years). We excluded studies on non-anaesthetic neuraxial procedures, such as lumbar puncture for diagnosis.
Outcomes: Our critical outcomes were: (1) number of attempts until success or procedure termination; (2) procedure time; and (3) participant satisfaction during the procedure. Our important outcomes were: (1) first-attempt success; (2) technical failure; (3) pain during the procedure; and (4) any adverse events.
Risk of bias: We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias in the included studies for the seven critical and important outcomes.
Synthesis methods: We synthesised results for each outcome, where possible, by using a random-effects analytical model. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes, each with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where meta-analysis was not possible due to the nature of the data, we summarised the results narratively. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
Included studies: We included a total of 65 studies with 6823 participants. The studies were conducted in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, North America, and Oceania, and were published between 2001 and 2023. Thirty-two studies evaluated obstetric populations undergoing labour epidural or caesarean section (3149 participants); the remaining studies evaluated participants who received surgery under neuraxial anaesthesia. Thirty-three studies evaluated spinal anaesthesia, 15 studies evaluated lumbar epidural anaesthesia, 12 studies evaluated combined spinal and epidural anaesthesia, and the remaining four studies evaluated thoracic epidural anaesthesia. Four studies evaluated real-time ultrasound as an intervention arm. Two studies were three-arm trials, which evaluated pre-procedural ultrasound and real-time ultrasound. For participant satisfaction, a variety of measurement scales were used, so we synthesised participant satisfaction using SMD.
Synthesis of results: Our meta-analyses demonstrated that compared with anatomical landmarks, ultrasound guidance reduces the number of attempts until success or procedure termination (MD -0.41 attempts, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.31; 57 studies, 6192 participants; high-certainty evidence), and procedure (needling) time (MD -33.8 seconds, 95% CI -47.22 to -20.39; 43 studies, 4178 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ultrasound guidance likely increases the rate of first-attempt success (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.52; 50 studies, 5205 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Ultrasound guidance may result in little to no difference in participant satisfaction (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.35; 25 studies; low-certainty evidence), or in technical failure (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.29; 40 studies, 4581 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of ultrasound guidance on pain during the procedure (MD -0.20 points, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.13; 13 studies, 1532 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and adverse effects (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.03; 15 studies, 1692 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
Authors' conclusions: Compared to anatomical landmarks, ultrasound guidance for neuraxial anaesthesia in adults reduces the number of attempts required for success and reduces procedure (needling) time. It likely increases the rate of first-attempt success. Low-certainty evidence suggests that ultrasound guidance may result in little to no difference in participant satisfaction or technical failure. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ultrasound guidance on pain and adverse events. Although ultrasound guidance can be beneficial for neuraxial anaesthesia without increased risk, these results should be interpreted with caution due to some uncertainties in the evidence.
Funding: None.
Registration: Protocol available via doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014964.
期刊介绍:
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.