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

Samiullah Shaikh, Umm E Salma Shabbar Banatwala, Paranshi Desai, Muhammad Arham Khan, Rimsha Bint-E-Hina, Sidra Samad, Muhammad Hamza Sikandari, Ali Nawaz, Rana Ijaz, Shayan Asmat, Abeer Fatima, Harim Mirza, Noor Mahal Azam, Qurat Ul Ain Muhammad, Satesh Kumar, Mahima Khatri
{"title":"Analgesic efficacy and safety of erector spinae plane block versus serratus anterior plane block in breast surgery-a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Samiullah Shaikh, Umm E Salma Shabbar Banatwala, Paranshi Desai, Muhammad Arham Khan, Rimsha Bint-E-Hina, Sidra Samad, Muhammad Hamza Sikandari, Ali Nawaz, Rana Ijaz, Shayan Asmat, Abeer Fatima, Harim Mirza, Noor Mahal Azam, Qurat Ul Ain Muhammad, Satesh Kumar, Mahima Khatri","doi":"10.1186/s44158-024-00218-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery are key interventions for breast cancer, a leading cause of cancer-related mortality in women. Many undergoing breast surgery experience postoperative pain compromising their functionality and quality of life. While multiple pain management strategies are available, evidence comparing the erector spinae (ESPB) and serratus anterior plane blocks (SAPB) for improving post-surgical pain management in breast cancer surgery patients is limited. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy and safety of these two regional anesthesia techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After PROSPERO registration, we systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library until May 2024. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes and standard mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) were computed for continuous data. RevMan Review Manager 5.4.1 was used for the data analysis and generation of forest plots as well as funnel plots. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 (18) and Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines were used to appraise and evaluate the evidence (19).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 9 randomized control trials enrolling 550 patients were included. Static pain scores at 0, 6, 8, 12, and 24 h after surgery, dynamic pain scores computed at 0, 8, 12, and 24 h after surgery and area under the curve (AUC) static pain score at all time points between 0 and 24 h (SMD (HKSJ 95% CI) - 0.27 [- 0.99, 0.45]) did not significantly vary with either plane block. Postoperative morphine consumption in the first 24 h and the number of patients requesting analgesia were significantly greater in those receiving SAPB [MD: - 1.41 (95% C.I. - 2.70, - 0.13), p = 0.03] and [RR: 1.28 (95% C.I. 1.00, 1.63), p = 0.05], respectively. The time to first postoperative analgesic use was significantly greater among those administered ESPB [MD: 1.55 h, (95% C.I. 1.02, 2.09), p < 0.01]. Patient satisfaction scores and the incidence of nausea and vomiting were similar across both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While pain scores with either block are comparable, ESPB reduces postoperative morphine consumption and may be the favorable option in breast cancer patients undergoing surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":73597,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","volume":"4 1","pages":"82"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11657579/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/s44158-024-00218-7","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: Mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery are key interventions for breast cancer, a leading cause of cancer-related mortality in women. Many undergoing breast surgery experience postoperative pain compromising their functionality and quality of life. While multiple pain management strategies are available, evidence comparing the erector spinae (ESPB) and serratus anterior plane blocks (SAPB) for improving post-surgical pain management in breast cancer surgery patients is limited. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy and safety of these two regional anesthesia techniques.

Methods: After PROSPERO registration, we systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library until May 2024. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes and standard mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) were computed for continuous data. RevMan Review Manager 5.4.1 was used for the data analysis and generation of forest plots as well as funnel plots. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 (18) and Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines were used to appraise and evaluate the evidence (19).

Results: A total of 9 randomized control trials enrolling 550 patients were included. Static pain scores at 0, 6, 8, 12, and 24 h after surgery, dynamic pain scores computed at 0, 8, 12, and 24 h after surgery and area under the curve (AUC) static pain score at all time points between 0 and 24 h (SMD (HKSJ 95% CI) - 0.27 [- 0.99, 0.45]) did not significantly vary with either plane block. Postoperative morphine consumption in the first 24 h and the number of patients requesting analgesia were significantly greater in those receiving SAPB [MD: - 1.41 (95% C.I. - 2.70, - 0.13), p = 0.03] and [RR: 1.28 (95% C.I. 1.00, 1.63), p = 0.05], respectively. The time to first postoperative analgesic use was significantly greater among those administered ESPB [MD: 1.55 h, (95% C.I. 1.02, 2.09), p < 0.01]. Patient satisfaction scores and the incidence of nausea and vomiting were similar across both groups.

Conclusions: While pain scores with either block are comparable, ESPB reduces postoperative morphine consumption and may be the favorable option in breast cancer patients undergoing 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
竖脊肌平面阻滞与前锯肌平面阻滞在乳房手术中的镇痛疗效和安全性——随机对照试验的荟萃分析和系统评价。
背景:乳房切除术和保乳手术是治疗乳腺癌的关键干预措施,乳腺癌是女性癌症相关死亡的主要原因。许多接受乳房手术的人都会经历术后疼痛,影响她们的功能和生活质量。虽然有多种疼痛管理策略可用,但比较竖脊肌(ESPB)和前锯肌阻滞(SAPB)改善乳腺癌手术患者术后疼痛管理的证据有限。因此,我们研究了这两种区域麻醉技术的有效性和安全性。方法:在PROSPERO注册后,我们系统地检索PubMed,谷歌Scholar和Cochrane Library,直到2024年5月。计算二分类结果的风险比(RR),计算连续数据的标准平均差异(SMD)或平均差异(MD)。使用RevMan Review Manager 5.4.1进行数据分析,生成森林图和漏斗图。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具2.0(18)和推荐、评估、发展和评价等级(GRADE)指南来评估和评价证据(19)。结果:共纳入9项随机对照试验,纳入550例患者。术后0、6、8、12和24小时的静态疼痛评分,术后0、8、12和24小时的动态疼痛评分,以及0至24小时所有时间点的曲线下面积(AUC)静态疼痛评分(SMD (HKSJ 95% CI) - 0.27[- 0.99, 0.45])在两种平面阻滞中均无显著差异。SAPB组术后前24 h吗啡用量和要求镇痛的患者数量显著高于对照组[MD: - 1.41 (95% ci: - 2.70, - 0.13), p = 0.03]和[RR: 1.28 (95% ci: 1.00, 1.63), p = 0.05]。ESPB组患者术后首次使用镇痛药的时间明显更长[MD: 1.55 h, (95% ci: 1.02, 2.09), p结论:虽然两种阻断的疼痛评分相当,但ESPB减少了术后吗啡的消耗,可能是接受手术的乳腺癌患者的有利选择。
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
Single center experience with Hypotension Prediction Index (HPI) during cytoreductive surgery with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC). Neuromodulation in chronic pain management: addressing persistent doubts in spinal cord stimulation. Ciltius, Altius, Fortius! Our Olympic games: simulation training for potential casualties massive influx during Paris 2024! One-year outcome and quality of life of patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage admitted to intensive care unit: a single-center retrospective pilot study. Analgosedation in patients with acute respiratory failure on noninvasive ventilation: is it truly safe?
×
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