Analgesic efficacy and safety of erector spinae versus serratus anterior plane block in thoracic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Qurat Ul Ain Muhammad, Muhammad Ahmad Sohail, Noor Mahal Azam, Hafiza Hifza Bashir, Hira Islam, Rana Ijaz, Sakina Aquil, Tehreem Mansoor, Bishal Dhakal, Tehniat Fatima, Javeria Noor, Alina Sami Khan, Arham Iqbal, Mahima Khatri, Satesh Kumar
{"title":"Analgesic efficacy and safety of erector spinae versus serratus anterior plane block in thoracic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Qurat Ul Ain Muhammad, Muhammad Ahmad Sohail, Noor Mahal Azam, Hafiza Hifza Bashir, Hira Islam, Rana Ijaz, Sakina Aquil, Tehreem Mansoor, Bishal Dhakal, Tehniat Fatima, Javeria Noor, Alina Sami Khan, Arham Iqbal, Mahima Khatri, Satesh Kumar","doi":"10.1186/s44158-023-00138-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) are regional anesthesia techniques that have shown favorable results in pain management following thoracic surgeries; however, their relative superiority is unclear. This review (PROSPERO: CRD42023443018) aims to compare the analgesic efficacy of ESPB and SAPB in patients undergoing thoracic surgeries through the pooled analysis of co-primary outcomes: postoperative oral-morphine-equivalent (mg) consumption in 24 h and pain scores (static) at 24 h.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to May 2023, comparing ESPB and SAPB in thoracic surgeries. Statistical pooling was done using Review Manager 5.4.1. Bias assessment employed the Cochrane Collaboration Risk-of-Bias 2.0 tool. The strength of evidence was assessed using the guidelines from the GRADE working group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine RCTs (485 patients) were included in the study. Postoperative pain scores (static) at 24 h (mean difference (MD) =  - 0.31 [- 0.57, 0.05], p = 0.02) and postoperative oral-morphine-equivalent (mg) consumption in 24 h (MD =  - 19.73 [- 25.65, - 13.80], p < 0.00001) were significantly lower in the ESBP group. However, the MDs did not exceed the set threshold for clinical importance. No significant differences were observed in the opioid-related adverse effects and block-related complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our statistically significant results imply that ESPB has superior analgesic efficacy compared to SAPB; however, this difference is clinically unimportant. The safety profile of the two blocks is comparable; hence, current evidence cannot define the relative superiority of one block over the other. Our findings warrant further research with standardized methodologies and a longer duration of analgesic efficacy assessment to yield robust evidence for better clinical applications.</p>","PeriodicalId":73597,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","volume":"4 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10785351/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44158-023-00138-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) are regional anesthesia techniques that have shown favorable results in pain management following thoracic surgeries; however, their relative superiority is unclear. This review (PROSPERO: CRD42023443018) aims to compare the analgesic efficacy of ESPB and SAPB in patients undergoing thoracic surgeries through the pooled analysis of co-primary outcomes: postoperative oral-morphine-equivalent (mg) consumption in 24 h and pain scores (static) at 24 h.

Methods: A literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to May 2023, comparing ESPB and SAPB in thoracic surgeries. Statistical pooling was done using Review Manager 5.4.1. Bias assessment employed the Cochrane Collaboration Risk-of-Bias 2.0 tool. The strength of evidence was assessed using the guidelines from the GRADE working group.

Results: Nine RCTs (485 patients) were included in the study. Postoperative pain scores (static) at 24 h (mean difference (MD) =  - 0.31 [- 0.57, 0.05], p = 0.02) and postoperative oral-morphine-equivalent (mg) consumption in 24 h (MD =  - 19.73 [- 25.65, - 13.80], p < 0.00001) were significantly lower in the ESBP group. However, the MDs did not exceed the set threshold for clinical importance. No significant differences were observed in the opioid-related adverse effects and block-related complications.

Conclusion: Our statistically significant results imply that ESPB has superior analgesic efficacy compared to SAPB; however, this difference is clinically unimportant. The safety profile of the two blocks is comparable; hence, current evidence cannot define the relative superiority of one block over the other. Our findings warrant further research with standardized methodologies and a longer duration of analgesic efficacy assessment to yield robust evidence for better clinical applications.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
胸外科手术中竖脊肌与前锯肌平面阻滞的镇痛效果和安全性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:脊柱后凸面阻滞(ESPB)和前锯肌面阻滞(SAPB)是区域麻醉技术,在胸外科手术后的疼痛治疗中显示出良好的效果;然而,它们的相对优越性尚不明确。本综述(PROSPERO:CRD42023443018)旨在通过对共同主要结果(术后 24 小时内的口服吗啡当量(毫克)消耗量和 24 小时内的疼痛评分(静态))的汇总分析,比较 ESPB 和 SAPB 对胸外科手术患者的镇痛效果:在 PubMed、Cochrane Library 和 Google Scholar 上进行了文献检索,以确定从开始到 2023 年 5 月期间在胸外科手术中比较 ESPB 和 SAPB 的随机对照试验 (RCT)。使用Review Manager 5.4.1进行统计汇总。偏倚评估采用 Cochrane 协作偏倚风险 2.0 工具。证据强度采用 GRADE 工作组的指南进行评估:研究共纳入了 9 项 RCT(485 名患者)。24小时内术后疼痛评分(静态)(平均差(MD)= - 0.31 [- 0.57, 0.05],P = 0.02)和24小时内术后口服吗啡当量(mg)消耗量(MD = - 19.73 [- 25.65, - 13.80],P 结论:具有统计学意义的结果表明,ESPB 的镇痛效果优于 SAPB,但这种差异在临床上并不重要。两种阻滞剂的安全性相当;因此,目前的证据无法确定一种阻滞剂相对于另一种阻滞剂的优越性。我们的研究结果值得进一步研究,需要标准化的方法和更长的镇痛疗效评估时间,以便为更好的临床应用提供可靠的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Severe bronchiolitis before and after the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective database analysis by the Italian Network of PICU study group (TIPNet). Understanding neuropathic pain: the role of neurophysiological tests in unveiling underlying mechanisms. Erector spinae plane block for cancer pain relief: a systematic review. Echocardiographic evaluation in patient candidate for liver transplant: from pathophysiology to hemodynamic optimization. Management of critically ill patients in austere environments: good clinical practice by the Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI).
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1