{"title":"斜角肌和胸小肌阻滞对胸廓出口综合征的诊断准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Khanjan H Nagarsheth, Christina Schweitzer","doi":"10.1177/00031348251339530","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundThoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) is a complex neurovascular condition that remains challenging to diagnose, particularly neurogenic TOS (nTOS), which comprises most cases. While vascular TOS has clear diagnostic criteria, nTOS diagnosis relies on clinical assessments, imaging, and electrophysiologic studies. Scalene and pectoralis minor muscle blocks have been proposed as diagnostic tools, but their accuracy remains uncertain.ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of scalene and pectoralis minor blocks for TOS.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar following PRISMA guidelines. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of these blocks for TOS were included. The QUADAS-2 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used for quality assessment. A meta-analysis using RevMan and STATA assessed pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs).ResultsOf the 180 reports yielded by the search, 12 studies met inclusion criteria (950 patients). Pooled sensitivity for scalene and pectoralis minor blocks was 87% (95% CI: 83%-90%), while specificity was 34% (95% CI: 26%-43%). The diagnostic odds ratio was 3.98 (95% CI: 2.50-6.34). Substantial heterogeneity was observed (I<sup>2</sup> = 68%, <i>P</i> < 0.001), attributed to variations in injection protocols, outcome definitions, and patient selection.ConclusionScalene and pectoralis minor blocks have high sensitivity but low specificity for TOS diagnosis. Their use as stand-alone diagnostic tools is limited. However, they may be valuable within a multimodal diagnostic framework integrating clinical evaluation, imaging, and electrophysiologic testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":7782,"journal":{"name":"American Surgeon","volume":" ","pages":"31348251339530"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic Accuracy of Scalene and Pectoralis Minor Muscle Blocks for Thoracic Outlet Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Khanjan H Nagarsheth, Christina Schweitzer\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00031348251339530\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>BackgroundThoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) is a complex neurovascular condition that remains challenging to diagnose, particularly neurogenic TOS (nTOS), which comprises most cases. While vascular TOS has clear diagnostic criteria, nTOS diagnosis relies on clinical assessments, imaging, and electrophysiologic studies. Scalene and pectoralis minor muscle blocks have been proposed as diagnostic tools, but their accuracy remains uncertain.ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of scalene and pectoralis minor blocks for TOS.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar following PRISMA guidelines. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of these blocks for TOS were included. The QUADAS-2 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used for quality assessment. A meta-analysis using RevMan and STATA assessed pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs).ResultsOf the 180 reports yielded by the search, 12 studies met inclusion criteria (950 patients). Pooled sensitivity for scalene and pectoralis minor blocks was 87% (95% CI: 83%-90%), while specificity was 34% (95% CI: 26%-43%). The diagnostic odds ratio was 3.98 (95% CI: 2.50-6.34). Substantial heterogeneity was observed (I<sup>2</sup> = 68%, <i>P</i> < 0.001), attributed to variations in injection protocols, outcome definitions, and patient selection.ConclusionScalene and pectoralis minor blocks have high sensitivity but low specificity for TOS diagnosis. Their use as stand-alone diagnostic tools is limited. However, they may be valuable within a multimodal diagnostic framework integrating clinical evaluation, imaging, and electrophysiologic testing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Surgeon\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"31348251339530\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Surgeon\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348251339530\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348251339530","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景胸廓出口综合征(TOS)是一种复杂的神经血管疾病,诊断仍然具有挑战性,特别是神经源性TOS (nTOS),占大多数病例。虽然血管性TOS有明确的诊断标准,但nTOS的诊断依赖于临床评估、影像学和电生理研究。斜角肌和胸小肌阻滞已被提出作为诊断工具,但其准确性仍不确定。目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析评估斜角肌和胸小肌阻滞对TOS的敏感性、特异性和诊断准确性。方法系统检索PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、谷歌Scholar等数据库,按照PRISMA指南进行文献检索。研究评估了这些块对TOS的诊断准确性。采用QUADAS-2和Newcastle-Ottawa量表进行质量评估。使用RevMan和STATA进行的荟萃分析评估了合并的敏感性、特异性和诊断优势比(DORs)。结果在检索得到的180份报告中,12项研究(950例患者)符合纳入标准。斜角肌和胸小肌阻滞的总敏感性为87% (95% CI: 83%-90%),特异性为34% (95% CI: 26%-43%)。诊断优势比为3.98 (95% CI: 2.50-6.34)。观察到实质性的异质性(I2 = 68%, P < 0.001),归因于注射方案、结局定义和患者选择的差异。结论斜角肌阻滞和胸小肌阻滞对TOS的诊断敏感性高,特异性低。它们作为独立诊断工具的使用是有限的。然而,在综合临床评估、成像和电生理测试的多模式诊断框架中,它们可能是有价值的。
Diagnostic Accuracy of Scalene and Pectoralis Minor Muscle Blocks for Thoracic Outlet Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BackgroundThoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) is a complex neurovascular condition that remains challenging to diagnose, particularly neurogenic TOS (nTOS), which comprises most cases. While vascular TOS has clear diagnostic criteria, nTOS diagnosis relies on clinical assessments, imaging, and electrophysiologic studies. Scalene and pectoralis minor muscle blocks have been proposed as diagnostic tools, but their accuracy remains uncertain.ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of scalene and pectoralis minor blocks for TOS.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar following PRISMA guidelines. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of these blocks for TOS were included. The QUADAS-2 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used for quality assessment. A meta-analysis using RevMan and STATA assessed pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs).ResultsOf the 180 reports yielded by the search, 12 studies met inclusion criteria (950 patients). Pooled sensitivity for scalene and pectoralis minor blocks was 87% (95% CI: 83%-90%), while specificity was 34% (95% CI: 26%-43%). The diagnostic odds ratio was 3.98 (95% CI: 2.50-6.34). Substantial heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 68%, P < 0.001), attributed to variations in injection protocols, outcome definitions, and patient selection.ConclusionScalene and pectoralis minor blocks have high sensitivity but low specificity for TOS diagnosis. Their use as stand-alone diagnostic tools is limited. However, they may be valuable within a multimodal diagnostic framework integrating clinical evaluation, imaging, and electrophysiologic testing.
期刊介绍:
The American Surgeon is a monthly peer-reviewed publication published by the Southeastern Surgical Congress. Its area of concentration is clinical general surgery, as defined by the content areas of the American Board of Surgery: alimentary tract (including bariatric surgery), abdomen and its contents, breast, skin and soft tissue, endocrine system, solid organ transplantation, pediatric surgery, surgical critical care, surgical oncology (including head and neck surgery), trauma and emergency surgery, and vascular surgery.