Hypotension after unilateral versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia: A Systematic review with meta-analysis.

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY European Journal of Anaesthesiology Pub Date : 2024-11-22 DOI:10.1097/EJA.0000000000002098
Cansheng Gong, Xiuming Ye, Yanling Liao, Peng Ye, Ting Zheng, Xiaochun Zheng
{"title":"Hypotension after unilateral versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia: A Systematic review with meta-analysis.","authors":"Cansheng Gong, Xiuming Ye, Yanling Liao, Peng Ye, Ting Zheng, Xiaochun Zheng","doi":"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Spinal anaesthesia is frequently used in surgical procedures involving the lower abdomen and extremities, however, the occurrence of hypotension remains a common and clinically important adverse effect. Unilateral spinal anaesthesia seems to be a promising approach to minimise this complication but the effectiveness of this remains controversial.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>A meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the superiority of unilateral spinal anaesthesia over bilateral spinal anaesthesia with regard to the incidence of hypotension and other complications.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Date sources: </strong>PUBMED, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from their inception to 5 March 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing unilateral spinal anaesthesia with bilateral spinal anaesthesia were eligible for inclusion. Observational studies, case reports, case series, and studies not conducted in humans were excluded. The incidence of hypotension, vasopressor requirement, and other complications were compared. Heterogeneity was assessed by subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one trials involving 1358 patients undergoing unilateral lower extremity surgery or lower abdominal surgery were included in the meta-analysis. Hyperbaric solutions were used in most trials. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effect model was used for the analysis of binary endpoints, reported as relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the unilateral spinal anaesthesia group compared with the bilateral spinal anaesthesia (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.55; P < 0.001; I2 = 38%). Subgroup analysis shows that the occurrence of hypotension was significantly lower in the unilateral subgroup, regardless of dosage, surgical site, adjuvants to the local anaesthetics, and different definitions of hypotension.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Unilateral spinal anaesthesia is associated with a significant reduction in the occurrence of hypotension, despite variations in the definition of hypotension, adjuvants, and site of surgery. These results favour the use of lateral spinal anaesthesia in patients undergoing unilateral lower abdominal or lower limb surgery. However, the GRADE assessment of the quality of evidence was 'low' due to the high risk of bias and heterogeneity. All the results should be treated with caution.</p>","PeriodicalId":11920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002098","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Spinal anaesthesia is frequently used in surgical procedures involving the lower abdomen and extremities, however, the occurrence of hypotension remains a common and clinically important adverse effect. Unilateral spinal anaesthesia seems to be a promising approach to minimise this complication but the effectiveness of this remains controversial.

Objective: A meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the superiority of unilateral spinal anaesthesia over bilateral spinal anaesthesia with regard to the incidence of hypotension and other complications.

Design: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Date sources: PUBMED, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from their inception to 5 March 2024.

Eligibility criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing unilateral spinal anaesthesia with bilateral spinal anaesthesia were eligible for inclusion. Observational studies, case reports, case series, and studies not conducted in humans were excluded. The incidence of hypotension, vasopressor requirement, and other complications were compared. Heterogeneity was assessed by subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis.

Results: Twenty-one trials involving 1358 patients undergoing unilateral lower extremity surgery or lower abdominal surgery were included in the meta-analysis. Hyperbaric solutions were used in most trials. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effect model was used for the analysis of binary endpoints, reported as relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the unilateral spinal anaesthesia group compared with the bilateral spinal anaesthesia (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.55; P < 0.001; I2 = 38%). Subgroup analysis shows that the occurrence of hypotension was significantly lower in the unilateral subgroup, regardless of dosage, surgical site, adjuvants to the local anaesthetics, and different definitions of hypotension.

Conclusions: Unilateral spinal anaesthesia is associated with a significant reduction in the occurrence of hypotension, despite variations in the definition of hypotension, adjuvants, and site of surgery. These results favour the use of lateral spinal anaesthesia in patients undergoing unilateral lower abdominal or lower limb surgery. However, the GRADE assessment of the quality of evidence was 'low' due to the high risk of bias and heterogeneity. All the results should be treated with caution.

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
单侧与双侧脊髓麻醉后的低血压:系统回顾与荟萃分析。
背景:脊髓麻醉常用于涉及下腹部和四肢的外科手术,然而,低血压的发生仍然是一种常见的、具有重要临床意义的不良反应。单侧脊麻似乎是将这种并发症降至最低的一种可行方法,但其有效性仍存在争议:进行了一项荟萃分析,以评估在低血压和其他并发症的发生率方面,单侧脊髓麻醉是否优于双侧脊髓麻醉:随机对照试验 (RCT) 的系统回顾和荟萃分析:检索了PUBMED、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials等数据库,检索时间从开始至2024年3月5日:比较单侧脊髓麻醉与双侧脊髓麻醉的随机对照试验(RCT)符合纳入条件。观察性研究、病例报告、系列病例以及非人类研究均排除在外。比较了低血压、血管加压剂需求和其他并发症的发生率。通过亚组分析和敏感性分析评估了异质性:荟萃分析共纳入21项试验,涉及1358名接受单侧下肢手术或下腹部手术的患者。大多数试验都使用了高压氧溶液。二元终点分析采用曼特尔-海恩泽尔随机效应模型,以相对风险(RR)和95%置信区间(CI)报告。单侧脊麻组的低血压发生率明显低于双侧脊麻组(RR 0.38,95% CI 0.27 至 0.55;P 结论:单侧脊麻组的低血压发生率明显低于双侧脊麻组(RR 0.38,95% CI 0.27 至 0.55):尽管低血压的定义、辅助剂和手术部位存在差异,但单侧脊麻可显著减少低血压的发生。这些结果有利于在接受单侧下腹部或下肢手术的患者中使用侧脊髓麻醉。然而,由于存在高偏倚风险和异质性,GRADE 对证据质量的评估结果为 "低"。所有结果都应谨慎对待。
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
6.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
351
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA) publishes original work of high scientific quality in the field of anaesthesiology, pain, emergency medicine and intensive care. Preference is given to experimental work or clinical observation in man, and to laboratory work of clinical relevance. The journal also publishes commissioned reviews by an authority, editorials, invited commentaries, special articles, pro and con debates, and short reports (correspondences, case reports, short reports of clinical studies).
期刊最新文献
A big little problem - postoperative nausea and vomiting incidences are too low! Is it time to add the letter E to the airway management guidelines? Is permissive hypercapnia really pneumoprotective? Reply to: importance of accounting for repeated measure designs when evaluating treatment effects at multiple postoperative days. Rethinking the utility of comparative studies between direct and video laryngoscopy in neonates and infants.
×
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