腰四方肌阻滞不同方法用于剖宫产术后镇痛的疗效:随机对照试验的贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Narinder P Singh, Jeetinder K Makkar, Samanyu Koduri, Preet Mohinder Singh
{"title":"腰四方肌阻滞不同方法用于剖宫产术后镇痛的疗效:随机对照试验的贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Narinder P Singh, Jeetinder K Makkar, Samanyu Koduri, Preet Mohinder Singh","doi":"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Various approaches to quadratus lumborum block (QLB) have been found to be an effective analgesic modality after cesarean delivery (CD). However, the evidence for the superiority of any individual approach still needs to be demonstrated. Therefore, we conducted this network meta-analysis to compare and rank the different injection sites for QLB for pain-related outcomes after CD.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Central Registers of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of any approach of QLB with placebo/no block for post-CD pain. The primary outcome was parenteral consumption of morphine milligram equivalents in 24 postoperative hours. The secondary end points were early pain scores (4 to 6 h), late pain scores (24 h), adverse effects, and block-related complications. We used the surface under cumulative ranking probabilities to order approaches. The analysis was performed using Bayesian statistics (random-effects model).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen trials enrolling 890 patients were included. The surface under cumulative ranking probability for parenteral morphine equivalent consumption in 24 hours was the highest (87%) for the lateral approach, followed by the posterior and anterior approaches. The probability of reducing pain scores at all intervals was highest with the anterior approach. The anterior approach also ranked high for postoperative nausea and vomiting reduction, the only consistent reported side effect.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The anterior approach QLB had a superior probability for most patient-centric outcomes for patients undergoing CD. The findings should be confirmed through large RCTs.</p>","PeriodicalId":50678,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":"634-642"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of Different Approaches of Quadratus Lumborum Block for Postoperative Analgesia After Cesarean Delivery: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Narinder P Singh, Jeetinder K Makkar, Samanyu Koduri, Preet Mohinder Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001147\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Various approaches to quadratus lumborum block (QLB) have been found to be an effective analgesic modality after cesarean delivery (CD). However, the evidence for the superiority of any individual approach still needs to be demonstrated. Therefore, we conducted this network meta-analysis to compare and rank the different injection sites for QLB for pain-related outcomes after CD.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Central Registers of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of any approach of QLB with placebo/no block for post-CD pain. The primary outcome was parenteral consumption of morphine milligram equivalents in 24 postoperative hours. The secondary end points were early pain scores (4 to 6 h), late pain scores (24 h), adverse effects, and block-related complications. We used the surface under cumulative ranking probabilities to order approaches. The analysis was performed using Bayesian statistics (random-effects model).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen trials enrolling 890 patients were included. The surface under cumulative ranking probability for parenteral morphine equivalent consumption in 24 hours was the highest (87%) for the lateral approach, followed by the posterior and anterior approaches. The probability of reducing pain scores at all intervals was highest with the anterior approach. The anterior approach also ranked high for postoperative nausea and vomiting reduction, the only consistent reported side effect.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The anterior approach QLB had a superior probability for most patient-centric outcomes for patients undergoing CD. The findings should be confirmed through large RCTs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50678,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"634-642\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001147\",\"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":"Clinical Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001147","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

目的:腰方肌阻滞(QLB)是剖宫产术后一种有效的镇痛方法。然而,任何个别方法优越性的证据仍有待证明。因此,我们进行了这项网络荟萃分析,以比较和排序QLB在CD后疼痛相关结果的不同注射部位。材料和方法:检索PubMed、EMBASE、SCOPUS和Cochrane对照试验中央登记册(Central),以进行随机对照试验(RCT),评估QLB与安慰剂/无阻滞的任何方法对CD后疼痛的作用。主要结果是术后24小时内胃肠外消耗吗啡毫克当量。次要终点是早期疼痛评分(4-6小时)、晚期疼痛评分(24小时)、不良反应和阻滞相关并发症。我们使用累积排序概率下的曲面来排序方法。使用贝叶斯统计(随机效应模型)进行分析。结果:13项试验纳入890名患者。24小时内胃肠外吗啡当量消耗的表面积累积排序概率最高(87%)的是侧入路,其次是后入路和前入路。前路入路在所有时间间隔降低疼痛评分的概率最高。前路手术在减少术后恶心和呕吐方面也排名靠前,这是唯一一致报告的副作用。讨论:对于CD患者来说,前路QLB对大多数以患者为中心的结果具有更高的概率。应通过大型随机对照试验来证实这一发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy of Different Approaches of Quadratus Lumborum Block for Postoperative Analgesia After Cesarean Delivery: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Objectives: Various approaches to quadratus lumborum block (QLB) have been found to be an effective analgesic modality after cesarean delivery (CD). However, the evidence for the superiority of any individual approach still needs to be demonstrated. Therefore, we conducted this network meta-analysis to compare and rank the different injection sites for QLB for pain-related outcomes after CD.

Materials and methods: PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Central Registers of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of any approach of QLB with placebo/no block for post-CD pain. The primary outcome was parenteral consumption of morphine milligram equivalents in 24 postoperative hours. The secondary end points were early pain scores (4 to 6 h), late pain scores (24 h), adverse effects, and block-related complications. We used the surface under cumulative ranking probabilities to order approaches. The analysis was performed using Bayesian statistics (random-effects model).

Results: Thirteen trials enrolling 890 patients were included. The surface under cumulative ranking probability for parenteral morphine equivalent consumption in 24 hours was the highest (87%) for the lateral approach, followed by the posterior and anterior approaches. The probability of reducing pain scores at all intervals was highest with the anterior approach. The anterior approach also ranked high for postoperative nausea and vomiting reduction, the only consistent reported side effect.

Discussion: The anterior approach QLB had a superior probability for most patient-centric outcomes for patients undergoing CD. The findings should be confirmed through large RCTs.

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
Clinical Journal of Pain
Clinical Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
118
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​The Clinical Journal of Pain explores all aspects of pain and its effective treatment, bringing readers the insights of leading anesthesiologists, surgeons, internists, neurologists, orthopedists, psychiatrists and psychologists, clinical pharmacologists, and rehabilitation medicine specialists. This peer-reviewed journal presents timely and thought-provoking articles on clinical dilemmas in pain management; valuable diagnostic procedures; promising new pharmacological, surgical, and other therapeutic modalities; psychosocial dimensions of pain; and ethical issues of concern to all medical professionals. The journal also publishes Special Topic issues on subjects of particular relevance to the practice of pain medicine.
×
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