Wound Infiltration with Local Anesthetics versus Transversus Abdominis Plane Block for Postoperative Pain Management in Gynecological Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of minimally invasive gynecology Pub Date : 2024-11-05 DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2024.10.030
Filippo Alberto Ferrari, Beatrice Crestani, Lorena Torroni, Matteo Pavone, Federico Ferrari, Nicolas Bourdel, Massimo Franchi, Stefano Uccella
{"title":"Wound Infiltration with Local Anesthetics versus Transversus Abdominis Plane Block for Postoperative Pain Management in Gynecological Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Filippo Alberto Ferrari, Beatrice Crestani, Lorena Torroni, Matteo Pavone, Federico Ferrari, Nicolas Bourdel, Massimo Franchi, Stefano Uccella","doi":"10.1016/j.jmig.2024.10.030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Postoperative pain management significantly influences recovery speed, hospital stay duration, and healthcare costs. In light of inconsistencies in clinical trial outcomes, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of the Transversus Abdominis Plane (TAP) block compared to local anesthetic wound infiltration (WI) for postoperative pain management in gynecological surgery.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Systematic searches were conducted across PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAP block and WI in adult patients undergoing gynecological surgical procedures. Additionally, the reference lists of the identified studies were manually reviewed. Only studies published in English were eligible for inclusion in the analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods of study selection: </strong>The Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework for the review included: (1) adult patients who underwent gynecological surgical procedures; (2) postoperative TAP block as the intervention; (3) comparison with local anesthetic wound infiltration; (4) primary outcome: postoperative pain at 1, 4, 12, and 24 hours; secondary outcomes: postoperative opioid consumption, opioid-related side effects and patient satisfaction. STATA software, version 18 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA), was used for the analysis.</p><p><strong>Tabulation, integration, and results: </strong>A total of 213 papers were initially identified. Of these, 10 RCTs encompassing a total of 604 patients met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that in minimally invasive surgery TAP block was associated with lower pain scores at rest and 1, 4, 12, and 24 hours compared to the WI group. Furthermore, the TAP block resulted in a reduction in opioid consumption at 24 hours, although there was no significant difference in opioid-related adverse effects. Two studies presented data on patient-reported satisfaction, and a pooled analysis was not feasible due to heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TAP block seems to provide better postoperative pain control after laparoscopic gynecologic procedures and reduces opioid use compared to WI in gynecologic surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":16397,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2024.10.030","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Postoperative pain management significantly influences recovery speed, hospital stay duration, and healthcare costs. In light of inconsistencies in clinical trial outcomes, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of the Transversus Abdominis Plane (TAP) block compared to local anesthetic wound infiltration (WI) for postoperative pain management in gynecological surgery.

Data sources: Systematic searches were conducted across PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAP block and WI in adult patients undergoing gynecological surgical procedures. Additionally, the reference lists of the identified studies were manually reviewed. Only studies published in English were eligible for inclusion in the analysis.

Methods of study selection: The Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework for the review included: (1) adult patients who underwent gynecological surgical procedures; (2) postoperative TAP block as the intervention; (3) comparison with local anesthetic wound infiltration; (4) primary outcome: postoperative pain at 1, 4, 12, and 24 hours; secondary outcomes: postoperative opioid consumption, opioid-related side effects and patient satisfaction. STATA software, version 18 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA), was used for the analysis.

Tabulation, integration, and results: A total of 213 papers were initially identified. Of these, 10 RCTs encompassing a total of 604 patients met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that in minimally invasive surgery TAP block was associated with lower pain scores at rest and 1, 4, 12, and 24 hours compared to the WI group. Furthermore, the TAP block resulted in a reduction in opioid consumption at 24 hours, although there was no significant difference in opioid-related adverse effects. Two studies presented data on patient-reported satisfaction, and a pooled analysis was not feasible due to heterogeneity.

Conclusion: TAP block seems to provide better postoperative pain control after laparoscopic gynecologic procedures and reduces opioid use compared to WI in gynecologic surgery.

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
妇科手术中伤口浸润局麻药与腹横肌平面阻滞治疗术后疼痛的比较:随机对照试验的系统回顾和元分析》。
目的:术后疼痛管理对恢复速度、住院时间和医疗成本有很大影响。鉴于临床试验结果的不一致性,我们进行了一项系统性回顾和荟萃分析,以评估腹横肌平面(TAP)阻滞与局麻药伤口浸润(WI)相比在妇科手术术后疼痛管理方面的疗效:我们在 PubMed/MEDLINE、ScienceDirect、Cochrane Library 和 Web of Science 数据库中进行了系统检索,以确定在接受妇科手术的成年患者中比较 TAP 阻滞和 WI 的所有随机对照试验 (RCT)。此外,还对已确定研究的参考文献目录进行了人工审核。只有用英语发表的研究才有资格纳入分析:综述的人群、干预、比较和结果(PICO)框架包括(1)接受妇科手术的成年患者;(2)以术后 TAP 阻滞为干预措施;(3)与局部麻醉药伤口浸润进行比较;(4)主要结果:术后 1、4、12 和 24 小时的疼痛;次要结果:术后阿片类药物消耗量、阿片类药物相关副作用和患者满意度。分析使用 STATA 软件 18 版(Stata Corp,College Station,Texas,USA):最初共确定了 213 篇论文。制表、整合和结果:最初共找到 213 篇论文,其中有 10 篇 RCT 符合纳入标准,共涉及 604 名患者。荟萃分析表明,在微创手术中,与 WI 组相比,TAP 阻滞可降低静息和 1、4、12 和 24 小时时的疼痛评分。此外,TAP阻滞可减少 24 小时内阿片类药物的用量,但与阿片类药物相关的不良反应并无显著差异。有两项研究提供了患者报告的满意度数据,由于存在异质性,因此无法进行汇总分析:结论:与妇科手术中的WI相比,TAP阻滞似乎能更好地控制腹腔镜妇科手术后的疼痛,并减少阿片类药物的使用。
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
5.00
自引率
7.30%
发文量
272
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, formerly titled The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, is an international clinical forum for the exchange and dissemination of ideas, findings and techniques relevant to gynecologic endoscopy and other minimally invasive procedures. The Journal, which presents research, clinical opinions and case reports from the brightest minds in gynecologic surgery, is an authoritative source informing practicing physicians of the latest, cutting-edge developments occurring in this emerging field.
期刊最新文献
Is vaginal repair a good option for severe cesarean scar defect? Comparison of women with or without residual myometrium. Pelvic splenosis Mimicking Pelvic Tumor. Uterine Artery Embolization before Myomectomy: Is it worth the trouble? Vaginal Bulge is Not Always Prolapse. Use of Uterine Artery Embolization for the Treatment of Uterine Fibroids: A Comparative Review of Major National Guidelines.
×
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