Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Postoperative Analgesic Techniques in Thoracoscopic Lung Resection Patients.

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Pain and Therapy Pub Date : 2025-02-22 DOI:10.1007/s40122-025-00712-y
Fang Yue, Yongye Xie, Xiangdong Chen, Ruifen Xu, Hui Wang, Ning Bai, Minna Hou, Jiao Guo
{"title":"Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Postoperative Analgesic Techniques in Thoracoscopic Lung Resection Patients.","authors":"Fang Yue, Yongye Xie, Xiangdong Chen, Ruifen Xu, Hui Wang, Ning Bai, Minna Hou, Jiao Guo","doi":"10.1007/s40122-025-00712-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Postoperative analgesia in thoracoscopic lung resection is crucial, with several nerve block techniques-including thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA), paravertebral block (PVB), erector spinae plane block (ESPB), intercostal nerve block (INB), and serratus anterior plane block (SAPB)-commonly employed. However, there remains ongoing debate regarding the optimal technique.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of these analgesia methods, a systematic review was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, identifying relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to assess postoperative pain management, with subgroup analyses and meta-regression conducted to examine key factors influencing outcomes, such as the risk of bias, continuous catheter analgesia, and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results revealed that for 12-h resting visual analog scale (VAS) scores, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) ranking was TEA > PVB > ESPB > control > INB > SAPB, whereas at 24 h, it shifted to PVB > TEA > ESPB > INB > control > SAPB. For 12-h coughing VAS scores, TEA ranked highest, followed by PVB, SAPB, ESPB, and control. At 24 h, PVB ranked highest, followed by TEA, ESPB, SAPB, INB, and control. The inconsistency test showed good consistency, with minimal publication bias, and meta-regression revealed that neither study quality nor local anesthetic infiltration at the incision site significantly impacted the outcomes. Excluding studies without PCA did not change the SUCRA rankings. PVB consistently ranked highest for 24-h resting and coughing VAS scores. Clustered ranking plots indicated that PVB and ESPB were the most suitable techniques for postoperative analgesia.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PVB and ESPB emerged as the most suitable analgesic techniques for thoracoscopic lung resection. While PVB showed superior analgesic efficacy, ESPB offered fewer side effects, providing a safety advantage. TEA was considered less suitable due to its excessive side effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-025-00712-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Postoperative analgesia in thoracoscopic lung resection is crucial, with several nerve block techniques-including thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA), paravertebral block (PVB), erector spinae plane block (ESPB), intercostal nerve block (INB), and serratus anterior plane block (SAPB)-commonly employed. However, there remains ongoing debate regarding the optimal technique.

Methods: To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of these analgesia methods, a systematic review was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, identifying relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to assess postoperative pain management, with subgroup analyses and meta-regression conducted to examine key factors influencing outcomes, such as the risk of bias, continuous catheter analgesia, and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).

Results: The results revealed that for 12-h resting visual analog scale (VAS) scores, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) ranking was TEA > PVB > ESPB > control > INB > SAPB, whereas at 24 h, it shifted to PVB > TEA > ESPB > INB > control > SAPB. For 12-h coughing VAS scores, TEA ranked highest, followed by PVB, SAPB, ESPB, and control. At 24 h, PVB ranked highest, followed by TEA, ESPB, SAPB, INB, and control. The inconsistency test showed good consistency, with minimal publication bias, and meta-regression revealed that neither study quality nor local anesthetic infiltration at the incision site significantly impacted the outcomes. Excluding studies without PCA did not change the SUCRA rankings. PVB consistently ranked highest for 24-h resting and coughing VAS scores. Clustered ranking plots indicated that PVB and ESPB were the most suitable techniques for postoperative analgesia.

Conclusion: PVB and ESPB emerged as the most suitable analgesic techniques for thoracoscopic lung resection. While PVB showed superior analgesic efficacy, ESPB offered fewer side effects, providing a safety advantage. TEA was considered less suitable due to its excessive side effects.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pain and Therapy
Pain and Therapy CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
110
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of pain therapies and pain-related devices. Studies relating to diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged. Areas of focus include, but are not limited to, acute pain, cancer pain, chronic pain, headache and migraine, neuropathic pain, opioids, palliative care and pain ethics, peri- and post-operative pain as well as rheumatic pain and fibromyalgia. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports, trial protocols, short communications such as commentaries and editorials, and letters. The journal is read by a global audience and receives submissions from around the world. Pain and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of all scientifically and ethically sound research.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Influence of Intraoperative Pain Management on Postoperative Delirium in Elderly Patients: A Prospective Single-Center Randomized Controlled Trial. Lasmiditan and Different Triptans in Menstrual Migraine: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis. Headache Phenotype and the Psychosocial Burden of Cluster Headaches: An Analysis of Patients Prior to Hospitalization. Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Postoperative Analgesic Techniques in Thoracoscopic Lung Resection Patients. Efficacy of Different Acupuncture Techniques for Pain and Dysfunction in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
×
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