腹股沟与经典闭孔神经阻滞的系统评价和荟萃分析。

Q3 Medicine
Chi Te Chou, Sung-Wei Yu, Ting-Chun Lin
{"title":"腹股沟与经典闭孔神经阻滞的系统评价和荟萃分析。","authors":"Chi Te Chou, Sung-Wei Yu, Ting-Chun Lin","doi":"10.6859/aja.202203_60(1).0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Obturator nerve block (ONB) has been widely applied in transurethral resection of bladder tumor and knee surgery to prevent serious complications such as bladder perforation or to improve the quality of anesthesia during knee surgery. The classic/pubic and inguinal ONB methods are the two primary approaches used. The classic and inguinal ONB methods are two techniques for anesthetizing the obturator nerve, and each method may result in different respective outcomes. We aimed to compare the efficacy of the classic and inguinal methods. We presumed the inguinal approach to be an overall superior technique because it was recently invented and has been reported to provide numerous benefits. This study included randomized controlled trials comparing classic and inguinal approaches to ONB. Two independent investigators extracted study-level data for a random-effects meta-analysis of the comparison between the classic approach and inguinal approaches. We identified five studies comprising 312 patients. The pooled results revealed a higher success rate (risk ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.27), fewer puncture attempts (mean difference, -0.84; 95% CI, -1.55 to -0.12), and shorter procedure time (mean difference, -28.87; 95% CI, -47.19 to -10.54) for patients given inguinal ONB. The inguinal approach is, overall, the superior method for performing the ONB procedure. The inguinal method resulted in a higher success rate, fewer puncture attempts, and shorter procedure time.","PeriodicalId":8482,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of anesthesiology","volume":"60 1 1","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Inguinal Versus Classic Obturator Nerve Block.\",\"authors\":\"Chi Te Chou, Sung-Wei Yu, Ting-Chun Lin\",\"doi\":\"10.6859/aja.202203_60(1).0001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Obturator nerve block (ONB) has been widely applied in transurethral resection of bladder tumor and knee surgery to prevent serious complications such as bladder perforation or to improve the quality of anesthesia during knee surgery. The classic/pubic and inguinal ONB methods are the two primary approaches used. The classic and inguinal ONB methods are two techniques for anesthetizing the obturator nerve, and each method may result in different respective outcomes. We aimed to compare the efficacy of the classic and inguinal methods. We presumed the inguinal approach to be an overall superior technique because it was recently invented and has been reported to provide numerous benefits. This study included randomized controlled trials comparing classic and inguinal approaches to ONB. Two independent investigators extracted study-level data for a random-effects meta-analysis of the comparison between the classic approach and inguinal approaches. We identified five studies comprising 312 patients. The pooled results revealed a higher success rate (risk ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.27), fewer puncture attempts (mean difference, -0.84; 95% CI, -1.55 to -0.12), and shorter procedure time (mean difference, -28.87; 95% CI, -47.19 to -10.54) for patients given inguinal ONB. The inguinal approach is, overall, the superior method for performing the ONB procedure. The inguinal method resulted in a higher success rate, fewer puncture attempts, and shorter procedure time.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8482,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian journal of anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\"60 1 1\",\"pages\":\"1-10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian journal of anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6859/aja.202203_60(1).0001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6859/aja.202203_60(1).0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

闭孔神经阻滞(ONB)已广泛应用于经尿道膀胱肿瘤切除术和膝关节手术,以预防膀胱穿孔等严重并发症或提高膝关节手术的麻醉质量。经典/耻骨和腹股沟ONB方法是使用的两种主要方法。经典和腹股沟ONB方法是麻醉闭孔神经的两种技术,每种方法都可能导致不同的结果。我们的目的是比较经典和腹股沟方法的疗效。我们认为腹股沟入路是一种总体上优越的技术,因为它是最近发明的,据报道可以提供许多好处。这项研究包括比较经典和腹股沟入路ONB的随机对照试验。两名独立研究人员提取了研究水平的数据,用于对经典入路和腹股沟入路之间的比较进行随机效应荟萃分析。我们确定了五项研究,包括312名患者。合并结果显示,腹股沟ONB患者的成功率更高(风险比为1.15;95%置信区间[CI]为1.04-1.27),穿刺次数更少(平均差异为-0.84;95%可信区间为-1.55至-0.12),手术时间更短(平均差异,-28.87;95%可信比为-47.19至-10.54)。总的来说,腹股沟入路是进行ONB手术的优越方法。腹股沟法的成功率更高,穿刺次数更少,手术时间更短。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Inguinal Versus Classic Obturator Nerve Block.
Obturator nerve block (ONB) has been widely applied in transurethral resection of bladder tumor and knee surgery to prevent serious complications such as bladder perforation or to improve the quality of anesthesia during knee surgery. The classic/pubic and inguinal ONB methods are the two primary approaches used. The classic and inguinal ONB methods are two techniques for anesthetizing the obturator nerve, and each method may result in different respective outcomes. We aimed to compare the efficacy of the classic and inguinal methods. We presumed the inguinal approach to be an overall superior technique because it was recently invented and has been reported to provide numerous benefits. This study included randomized controlled trials comparing classic and inguinal approaches to ONB. Two independent investigators extracted study-level data for a random-effects meta-analysis of the comparison between the classic approach and inguinal approaches. We identified five studies comprising 312 patients. The pooled results revealed a higher success rate (risk ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.27), fewer puncture attempts (mean difference, -0.84; 95% CI, -1.55 to -0.12), and shorter procedure time (mean difference, -28.87; 95% CI, -47.19 to -10.54) for patients given inguinal ONB. The inguinal approach is, overall, the superior method for performing the ONB procedure. The inguinal method resulted in a higher success rate, fewer puncture attempts, and shorter procedure time.
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
Asian journal of anesthesiology
Asian journal of anesthesiology Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Asian Journal of Anesthesiology (AJA), launched in 1962, is the official and peer-reviewed publication of the Taiwan Society of Anaesthesiologists. It is published quarterly (March/June/September/December) by Airiti and indexed in EMBASE, Medline, Scopus, ScienceDirect, SIIC Data Bases. AJA accepts submissions from around the world. AJA is the premier open access journal in the field of anaesthesia and its related disciplines of critical care and pain in Asia. The number of Chinese anaesthesiologists has reached more than 60,000 and is still growing. The journal aims to disseminate anaesthesiology research and services for the Chinese community and is now the main anaesthesiology journal for Chinese societies located in Taiwan, Mainland China, Hong Kong and Singapore. AJAcaters to clinicians of all relevant specialties and biomedical scientists working in the areas of anesthesia, critical care medicine and pain management, as well as other related fields (pharmacology, pathology molecular biology, etc). AJA''s editorial team is composed of local and regional experts in the field as well as many leading international experts. Article types accepted include review articles, research papers, short communication, correspondence and images.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信