腰椎间盘切除术后疼痛的处理。荟萃分析和试验序列分析的系统综述。

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Josephine Zachodnik, Rachid Bech-Azeddine, Magnus Sandberg, Rebecca Scherwin, Rikke Malene Hartvigsen Grønholm Jepsen, Louise Møller Jørgensen, Kasper Højgaard Thybo, Anja Geisler
{"title":"腰椎间盘切除术后疼痛的处理。荟萃分析和试验序列分析的系统综述。","authors":"Josephine Zachodnik,&nbsp;Rachid Bech-Azeddine,&nbsp;Magnus Sandberg,&nbsp;Rebecca Scherwin,&nbsp;Rikke Malene Hartvigsen Grønholm Jepsen,&nbsp;Louise Møller Jørgensen,&nbsp;Kasper Højgaard Thybo,&nbsp;Anja Geisler","doi":"10.1002/ejp.70261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Inadequate postoperative pain management after lumbar discectomy may delay recovery, increase the risk of chronic pain, and prolong hospitalization. Effective analgesic strategies must balance pain control with minimal adverse effects.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To identify the most effective postoperative analgesic interventions for patients undergoing lumbar discectomy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Databases and Data Treatment</h3>\n \n <p>This systematic review was preregistered in PROSPERO and conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials were identified through systematic searches in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was opioid consumption within 24 h postoperatively. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan, with Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to adjust for random errors. Risk of bias was assessed using ROB2, and certainty of evidence was evaluated with GRADE.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 76 RCTs comprising 5617 participants were included, covering 11 analgesic strategies. Paracetamol, NSAIDs, epidural and intrathecal anaesthetics, local infiltration, nerve blocks, gabapentin, and pregabalin significantly reduced 24-h opioid consumption. Several interventions—including paracetamol, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, ketamine, epidural and intrathecal anaesthetics, local anaesthetics, nerve blocks, gabapentin, and pregabalin—were also associated with lower pain scores at 6 and 24 h. However, evidence certainty ranged from low to very low due to methodological limitations, small sample sizes, heterogeneity, and inconsistent baseline analgesia.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Multiple analgesic strategies show potential for reducing opioid use and improving early postoperative pain control after lumbar discectomy. Nevertheless, the low certainty of evidence highlights the urgent need for high-quality, standardized trials to inform clinical practice.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Significance</h3>\n \n <p>The findings demonstrate that the following analgesics significantly reduce supplemental opioid consumption and pain levels in the immediate postoperative period: PCM, NSAIDs, intrathecal anaesthetics, epidural anaesthetics, LIA/wound infiltration, nerve blockade, gabapentin, and pregabalin. However, the high risk of bias and low quality of evidence in many of the included trials necessitate cautious interpretation of the findings.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12021,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Pain","volume":"30 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13067818/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Postoperative Pain Management After Lumbar Discectomy. A Systematic Review With Meta-Analyses and Trial Sequential Analyses\",\"authors\":\"Josephine Zachodnik,&nbsp;Rachid Bech-Azeddine,&nbsp;Magnus Sandberg,&nbsp;Rebecca Scherwin,&nbsp;Rikke Malene Hartvigsen Grønholm Jepsen,&nbsp;Louise Møller Jørgensen,&nbsp;Kasper Højgaard Thybo,&nbsp;Anja Geisler\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ejp.70261\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Inadequate postoperative pain management after lumbar discectomy may delay recovery, increase the risk of chronic pain, and prolong hospitalization. Effective analgesic strategies must balance pain control with minimal adverse effects.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>To identify the most effective postoperative analgesic interventions for patients undergoing lumbar discectomy.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Databases and Data Treatment</h3>\\n \\n <p>This systematic review was preregistered in PROSPERO and conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials were identified through systematic searches in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was opioid consumption within 24 h postoperatively. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan, with Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to adjust for random errors. Risk of bias was assessed using ROB2, and certainty of evidence was evaluated with GRADE.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 76 RCTs comprising 5617 participants were included, covering 11 analgesic strategies. Paracetamol, NSAIDs, epidural and intrathecal anaesthetics, local infiltration, nerve blocks, gabapentin, and pregabalin significantly reduced 24-h opioid consumption. Several interventions—including paracetamol, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, ketamine, epidural and intrathecal anaesthetics, local anaesthetics, nerve blocks, gabapentin, and pregabalin—were also associated with lower pain scores at 6 and 24 h. However, evidence certainty ranged from low to very low due to methodological limitations, small sample sizes, heterogeneity, and inconsistent baseline analgesia.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Multiple analgesic strategies show potential for reducing opioid use and improving early postoperative pain control after lumbar discectomy. Nevertheless, the low certainty of evidence highlights the urgent need for high-quality, standardized trials to inform clinical practice.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Significance</h3>\\n \\n <p>The findings demonstrate that the following analgesics significantly reduce supplemental opioid consumption and pain levels in the immediate postoperative period: PCM, NSAIDs, intrathecal anaesthetics, epidural anaesthetics, LIA/wound infiltration, nerve blockade, gabapentin, and pregabalin. However, the high risk of bias and low quality of evidence in many of the included trials necessitate cautious interpretation of the findings.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":\"30 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13067818/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejp.70261\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejp.70261","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:腰椎间盘切除术后疼痛处理不当可能会延迟恢复,增加慢性疼痛的风险,延长住院时间。有效的镇痛策略必须平衡疼痛控制与最小的不良反应。目的:探讨腰椎间盘切除术后最有效的镇痛干预措施。数据库和数据处理:该系统评价已在PROSPERO预注册,并按照PRISMA指南进行。随机对照试验通过Medline、Embase和Cochrane图书馆的系统检索确定。主要终点是术后24小时内阿片类药物的消耗。meta分析采用RevMan软件,采用试验序列分析(TSA)校正随机误差。用ROB2评估偏倚风险,用GRADE评估证据的确定性。结果:共纳入76项随机对照试验,包括5617名受试者,涵盖11种镇痛策略。扑热息痛、非甾体抗炎药、硬膜外和鞘内麻醉、局部浸润、神经阻滞、加巴喷丁和普瑞巴林显著减少了24小时阿片类药物的消耗。包括扑热息痛、非甾体抗炎药、糖皮质激素、氯胺酮、硬膜外和鞘内麻醉、局部麻醉、神经阻滞、加巴喷丁和普瑞巴林在内的几种干预措施也与6和24小时的较低疼痛评分有关。然而,由于方法学的限制、样本量小、异质性和基线镇痛不一致,证据确定性从低到极低不等。结论:多种镇痛策略显示出减少阿片类药物使用和改善腰椎间盘切除术后早期疼痛控制的潜力。然而,证据的低确定性突出表明迫切需要高质量的标准化试验来为临床实践提供信息。意义:研究结果表明,以下镇痛药可显著减少术后即刻阿片类药物的补充消耗和疼痛水平:PCM、非甾体抗炎药、鞘内麻醉、硬膜外麻醉、LIA/伤口浸润、神经阻断、加巴喷丁和普瑞巴林。然而,在许多纳入的试验中,偏倚风险高,证据质量低,因此需要谨慎解释研究结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Postoperative Pain Management After Lumbar Discectomy. A Systematic Review With Meta-Analyses and Trial Sequential Analyses

Postoperative Pain Management After Lumbar Discectomy. A Systematic Review With Meta-Analyses and Trial Sequential Analyses

Background

Inadequate postoperative pain management after lumbar discectomy may delay recovery, increase the risk of chronic pain, and prolong hospitalization. Effective analgesic strategies must balance pain control with minimal adverse effects.

Objective

To identify the most effective postoperative analgesic interventions for patients undergoing lumbar discectomy.

Databases and Data Treatment

This systematic review was preregistered in PROSPERO and conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials were identified through systematic searches in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was opioid consumption within 24 h postoperatively. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan, with Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to adjust for random errors. Risk of bias was assessed using ROB2, and certainty of evidence was evaluated with GRADE.

Results

A total of 76 RCTs comprising 5617 participants were included, covering 11 analgesic strategies. Paracetamol, NSAIDs, epidural and intrathecal anaesthetics, local infiltration, nerve blocks, gabapentin, and pregabalin significantly reduced 24-h opioid consumption. Several interventions—including paracetamol, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, ketamine, epidural and intrathecal anaesthetics, local anaesthetics, nerve blocks, gabapentin, and pregabalin—were also associated with lower pain scores at 6 and 24 h. However, evidence certainty ranged from low to very low due to methodological limitations, small sample sizes, heterogeneity, and inconsistent baseline analgesia.

Conclusions

Multiple analgesic strategies show potential for reducing opioid use and improving early postoperative pain control after lumbar discectomy. Nevertheless, the low certainty of evidence highlights the urgent need for high-quality, standardized trials to inform clinical practice.

Significance

The findings demonstrate that the following analgesics significantly reduce supplemental opioid consumption and pain levels in the immediate postoperative period: PCM, NSAIDs, intrathecal anaesthetics, epidural anaesthetics, LIA/wound infiltration, nerve blockade, gabapentin, and pregabalin. However, the high risk of bias and low quality of evidence in many of the included trials necessitate cautious interpretation of the findings.

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
European Journal of Pain
European Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
163
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: European Journal of Pain (EJP) publishes clinical and basic science research papers relevant to all aspects of pain and its management, including specialties such as anaesthesia, dentistry, neurology and neurosurgery, orthopaedics, palliative care, pharmacology, physiology, psychiatry, psychology and rehabilitation; socio-economic aspects of pain are also covered. Regular sections in the journal are as follows: • Editorials and Commentaries • Position Papers and Guidelines • Reviews • Original Articles • Letters • Bookshelf The journal particularly welcomes clinical trials, which are published on an occasional basis. Research articles are published under the following subject headings: • Neurobiology • Neurology • Experimental Pharmacology • Clinical Pharmacology • Psychology • Behavioural Therapy • Epidemiology • Cancer Pain • Acute Pain • Clinical Trials.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书