自发性气胸VATS术后疼痛处理的系统综述。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Quirine C A van Steenwijk, Loes Janssen, Iris Hoogendoorn, Chris Dickhoff, Jerry Braun, Frank J C van den Broek
{"title":"自发性气胸VATS术后疼痛处理的系统综述。","authors":"Quirine C A van Steenwijk, Loes Janssen, Iris Hoogendoorn, Chris Dickhoff, Jerry Braun, Frank J C van den Broek","doi":"10.1186/s12871-026-03865-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Historically, thoracic epidural analgesia has been the standard for postoperative pain management after surgery for spontaneous pneumothorax. With the advent of enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery protocols, less invasive locoregional analgesic techniques are increasingly considered. Due to lack of high-quality evidence, current guidelines do not address optimal analgesic strategies in this population. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of various analgesic techniques following video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for spontaneous pneumothorax.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched until May 2025. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for spontaneous pneumothorax, with clearly described postoperative analgesic management (e.g. epidural, locoregional, systemic) and pain scores (visual analgesic score or numeric pain rating score) within 48 h. The primary outcome was pain scores within 48 h postoperatively; secondary outcomes included adjunct analgesic use and complications. Risk of bias was assessed for the primary outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty studies comprising 3,203 patients were assessed: risk of bias was low in 3, moderate/some concerns in 24 and high in 3 studies. There were 10 comparative studies and 20 single-arm cohort studies applying solely systemic analgesia (n = 14) or locoregional analgesia (n = 6). No single-arm cohort study applied solely epidural analgesia. Postoperative pain scores within 48 h were higher after systemic analgesia only, compared to the addition of locoregional or epidural analgesia. No clear differences were observed in analgesia-related complications between the analgesic techniques.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Locoregional or epidural analgesia as part of a multimodal regimen was associated with the lowest postoperative pain scores, although differences were small. Substantial heterogeneity and low certainty of evidence precluded definitive recommendations. This review provides a foundation for future research investigating optimal analgesic strategies following surgery for spontaneous pneumothorax.</p>","PeriodicalId":9190,"journal":{"name":"BMC Anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Postoperative pain management after VATS for spontaneous pneumothorax - a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Quirine C A van Steenwijk, Loes Janssen, Iris Hoogendoorn, Chris Dickhoff, Jerry Braun, Frank J C van den Broek\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12871-026-03865-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Historically, thoracic epidural analgesia has been the standard for postoperative pain management after surgery for spontaneous pneumothorax. With the advent of enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery protocols, less invasive locoregional analgesic techniques are increasingly considered. Due to lack of high-quality evidence, current guidelines do not address optimal analgesic strategies in this population. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of various analgesic techniques following video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for spontaneous pneumothorax.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched until May 2025. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for spontaneous pneumothorax, with clearly described postoperative analgesic management (e.g. epidural, locoregional, systemic) and pain scores (visual analgesic score or numeric pain rating score) within 48 h. The primary outcome was pain scores within 48 h postoperatively; secondary outcomes included adjunct analgesic use and complications. Risk of bias was assessed for the primary outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty studies comprising 3,203 patients were assessed: risk of bias was low in 3, moderate/some concerns in 24 and high in 3 studies. There were 10 comparative studies and 20 single-arm cohort studies applying solely systemic analgesia (n = 14) or locoregional analgesia (n = 6). No single-arm cohort study applied solely epidural analgesia. Postoperative pain scores within 48 h were higher after systemic analgesia only, compared to the addition of locoregional or epidural analgesia. No clear differences were observed in analgesia-related complications between the analgesic techniques.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Locoregional or epidural analgesia as part of a multimodal regimen was associated with the lowest postoperative pain scores, although differences were small. Substantial heterogeneity and low certainty of evidence precluded definitive recommendations. This review provides a foundation for future research investigating optimal analgesic strategies following surgery for spontaneous pneumothorax.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-05-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-026-03865-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-026-03865-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:历史上,胸段硬膜外镇痛一直是自发性气胸术后疼痛处理的标准方法。随着胸外科手术后恢复能力的提高,微创局部镇痛技术越来越受到重视。由于缺乏高质量的证据,目前的指南没有针对这一人群的最佳镇痛策略。本系统综述评估了电视胸腔镜手术治疗自发性气胸后各种镇痛技术的有效性。方法:检索Medline、Embase和Cochrane数据库至2025年5月。纳入标准为接受电视胸腔镜手术治疗自发性气胸的患者,明确描述了术后镇痛处理(如硬膜外、局部、全身)和48小时内的疼痛评分(视觉镇痛评分或数字疼痛评分)。主要结局是术后48小时内的疼痛评分;次要结局包括辅助止痛药的使用和并发症。对主要结局进行偏倚风险评估。结果:共评估了30项研究,包括3,203例患者:3项研究的偏倚风险为低,24项研究的偏倚风险为中等/部分,3项研究的偏倚风险为高。有10项比较研究和20项单臂队列研究单独应用全身镇痛(n = 14)或局部镇痛(n = 6)。没有单臂队列研究单独应用硬膜外镇痛。与局部或硬膜外镇痛相比,仅全身镇痛后48小时内的疼痛评分更高。两种镇痛技术在镇痛相关并发症方面无明显差异。结论:局部或硬膜外镇痛作为多模式方案的一部分与最低的术后疼痛评分相关,尽管差异很小。大量的异质性和低确定性的证据妨碍了明确的建议。本综述为进一步研究自发性气胸术后最佳镇痛策略提供了基础。
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 VATS for spontaneous pneumothorax - a systematic review.

Background: Historically, thoracic epidural analgesia has been the standard for postoperative pain management after surgery for spontaneous pneumothorax. With the advent of enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery protocols, less invasive locoregional analgesic techniques are increasingly considered. Due to lack of high-quality evidence, current guidelines do not address optimal analgesic strategies in this population. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of various analgesic techniques following video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for spontaneous pneumothorax.

Methods: Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched until May 2025. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for spontaneous pneumothorax, with clearly described postoperative analgesic management (e.g. epidural, locoregional, systemic) and pain scores (visual analgesic score or numeric pain rating score) within 48 h. The primary outcome was pain scores within 48 h postoperatively; secondary outcomes included adjunct analgesic use and complications. Risk of bias was assessed for the primary outcome.

Results: Thirty studies comprising 3,203 patients were assessed: risk of bias was low in 3, moderate/some concerns in 24 and high in 3 studies. There were 10 comparative studies and 20 single-arm cohort studies applying solely systemic analgesia (n = 14) or locoregional analgesia (n = 6). No single-arm cohort study applied solely epidural analgesia. Postoperative pain scores within 48 h were higher after systemic analgesia only, compared to the addition of locoregional or epidural analgesia. No clear differences were observed in analgesia-related complications between the analgesic techniques.

Conclusions: Locoregional or epidural analgesia as part of a multimodal regimen was associated with the lowest postoperative pain scores, although differences were small. Substantial heterogeneity and low certainty of evidence precluded definitive recommendations. This review provides a foundation for future research investigating optimal analgesic strategies following surgery for spontaneous pneumothorax.

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
BMC Anesthesiology
BMC Anesthesiology ANESTHESIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
349
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Anesthesiology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of anesthesiology, critical care, perioperative care and pain management, including clinical and experimental research into anesthetic mechanisms, administration and efficacy, technology and monitoring, and associated economic issues.
×
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