Tetuka Bagus Laksita, Mohammad Ayodhia Soebadi, Soetojo Wirjopranoto, Furqan Hidayatullah, Yudhistira Pradnyan Kloping, Fikri Rizaldi
{"title":"体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)中局部麻醉剂与全身止痛药的镇痛效果对比:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Tetuka Bagus Laksita, Mohammad Ayodhia Soebadi, Soetojo Wirjopranoto, Furqan Hidayatullah, Yudhistira Pradnyan Kloping, Fikri Rizaldi","doi":"10.5152/tju.2021.21143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) is one of the treatment options for patients with renal and ureteral calculi. Even though the procedure is less invasive compared to others, pain caused by the procedure is a major concern. Several studies recommended the use of either local or systemic analgesia with varying results. We aimed to compare the use of local anesthetics and systemic analgesics from randomized controlled trials evaluating pain management during ESWL. A systematic search adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis protocol was performed in theMedline, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane library databases. The bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Mean difference (MD) was used to analyze continuous outcomes. A total of seven studies were obtained. The topical anesthesia used was eutectic mixture of local anesthetic cream and xylocaine gel. In contrast, the local injection anesthesia used was subcutaneous prilocaine and intracutaneous sterile water injection. The systemic analgesics used were intramuscular and oral forms of sodium diclofenac. There is no significant difference between the visual analogue scale results between the local and systemic groups (P> .05). The differences in ESWL frequency were also insignificant (P > .05). Additional analgesics supplementation (MD 8.44, 95% CI 2.28-14.61, P¼ .007) and the duration of the procedure (MD 1.39, 95% CI 0.21-2.56, P¼ .02) were significantly lower in the local group. Local anesthesia in ESWL shows a similar degree of pain and frequency but has a shorter duration and fewer analgesics supplementation than systemic analgesics.</p>","PeriodicalId":23366,"journal":{"name":"Turkish journal of urology","volume":"47 4","pages":"270-278"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9612763/pdf/tju-47-4-270.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Local anesthetics versus systemic analgesics for reducing pain during Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL): A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Tetuka Bagus Laksita, Mohammad Ayodhia Soebadi, Soetojo Wirjopranoto, Furqan Hidayatullah, Yudhistira Pradnyan Kloping, Fikri Rizaldi\",\"doi\":\"10.5152/tju.2021.21143\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) is one of the treatment options for patients with renal and ureteral calculi. Even though the procedure is less invasive compared to others, pain caused by the procedure is a major concern. Several studies recommended the use of either local or systemic analgesia with varying results. We aimed to compare the use of local anesthetics and systemic analgesics from randomized controlled trials evaluating pain management during ESWL. A systematic search adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis protocol was performed in theMedline, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane library databases. The bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Mean difference (MD) was used to analyze continuous outcomes. A total of seven studies were obtained. The topical anesthesia used was eutectic mixture of local anesthetic cream and xylocaine gel. In contrast, the local injection anesthesia used was subcutaneous prilocaine and intracutaneous sterile water injection. The systemic analgesics used were intramuscular and oral forms of sodium diclofenac. There is no significant difference between the visual analogue scale results between the local and systemic groups (P> .05). The differences in ESWL frequency were also insignificant (P > .05). Additional analgesics supplementation (MD 8.44, 95% CI 2.28-14.61, P¼ .007) and the duration of the procedure (MD 1.39, 95% CI 0.21-2.56, P¼ .02) were significantly lower in the local group. Local anesthesia in ESWL shows a similar degree of pain and frequency but has a shorter duration and fewer analgesics supplementation than systemic analgesics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23366,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish journal of urology\",\"volume\":\"47 4\",\"pages\":\"270-278\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9612763/pdf/tju-47-4-270.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish journal of urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5152/tju.2021.21143\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish journal of urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/tju.2021.21143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)是治疗肾结石和输尿管结石患者的方法之一。尽管与其他治疗方法相比,体外冲击波碎石术的创伤性较小,但治疗过程中的疼痛仍是一个主要问题。多项研究建议使用局部或全身镇痛,但结果各不相同。我们旨在比较评估 ESWL 过程中疼痛治疗的随机对照试验中局部麻醉剂和全身镇痛剂的使用情况。我们在Medline、ScienceDirect和Cochrane图书馆数据库中按照《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》进行了系统检索。使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具对偏倚进行了评估。平均差(MD)用于分析连续性结果。共获得七项研究结果。所使用的局部麻醉药是局麻药膏和氟卡因凝胶的共晶混合物。而局部注射麻醉使用的是皮下普鲁卡因和皮内无菌水注射。使用的全身镇痛药是肌肉注射和口服双氯芬酸钠。局部组和全身组的视觉模拟量表结果无明显差异(P> .05)。ESWL 频率的差异也不显著(P > .05)。局部麻醉组的额外镇痛剂补充量(MD 8.44,95% CI 2.28-14.61,P¼ .007)和手术持续时间(MD 1.39,95% CI 0.21-2.56,P¼ .02)显著低于全身麻醉组。与全身镇痛药相比,ESWL局部麻醉的疼痛程度和频率相似,但持续时间更短,补充的镇痛药更少。
Local anesthetics versus systemic analgesics for reducing pain during Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL): A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) is one of the treatment options for patients with renal and ureteral calculi. Even though the procedure is less invasive compared to others, pain caused by the procedure is a major concern. Several studies recommended the use of either local or systemic analgesia with varying results. We aimed to compare the use of local anesthetics and systemic analgesics from randomized controlled trials evaluating pain management during ESWL. A systematic search adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis protocol was performed in theMedline, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane library databases. The bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Mean difference (MD) was used to analyze continuous outcomes. A total of seven studies were obtained. The topical anesthesia used was eutectic mixture of local anesthetic cream and xylocaine gel. In contrast, the local injection anesthesia used was subcutaneous prilocaine and intracutaneous sterile water injection. The systemic analgesics used were intramuscular and oral forms of sodium diclofenac. There is no significant difference between the visual analogue scale results between the local and systemic groups (P> .05). The differences in ESWL frequency were also insignificant (P > .05). Additional analgesics supplementation (MD 8.44, 95% CI 2.28-14.61, P¼ .007) and the duration of the procedure (MD 1.39, 95% CI 0.21-2.56, P¼ .02) were significantly lower in the local group. Local anesthesia in ESWL shows a similar degree of pain and frequency but has a shorter duration and fewer analgesics supplementation than systemic analgesics.
期刊介绍:
The aim of the Turkish Journal of Urology is to contribute to the literature by publishing scientifically high-quality research articles as well as reviews, editorials, letters to the editor and case reports. The journal’s target audience includes, urology specialists, medical specialty fellows and other specialists and practitioners who are interested in the field of urology.