Pectoral Nerve (PECs) block for postoperative analgesia-a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

International journal of physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology Pub Date : 2020-02-25 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01
Zhaosheng Jin, Ru Li, Tong J Gan, Yaohua He, Jun Lin
{"title":"Pectoral Nerve (PECs) block for postoperative analgesia-a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.","authors":"Zhaosheng Jin,&nbsp;Ru Li,&nbsp;Tong J Gan,&nbsp;Yaohua He,&nbsp;Jun Lin","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Pectoral Nerve (PECs) block is a fascial plane block first described by Blanco et al. for postoperative analgesia in breast surgery. The procedure is now widely used, and several small clinical trials have been published and reported favorably on the analgesic efficacy of PECs block. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we will summarize the current evidence on the efficacy of PECs block.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified and analyzed 19 randomized control trials from PubMed, Central, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science citation index, US clinical trials register and Google Scholar. The primary outcome was 24-hour opioid requirement, and secondary outcomes included pain scores, postoperative nausea and vomiting and other complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to systemic analgesia, PECs block was associated with reduced 24 hours opioid requirement [mean difference (MD) = -10.66 mg], lower pain score [9-12 hours postoperatively: MD = -1.18; 24 hours postoperatively: MD = -0.79] and less frequent PONV [risk ratio (RR) = 0.37, numbers needed to treat (NNT) = 5]. While the failure rate of PECs block was not well defined, several studies reported significant intraoperative opioid requirement despite PECs block. Lastly, trial sequential analysis indicated that no more clinical trials are needed to demonstrate the opioid sparing effect of PECs block.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When compared to general anesthesia with systemic opioids, PECs block was associated with significantly better perioperative pain control. There are currently insufficient data on the complication and failure rate of PECs block in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":14352,"journal":{"name":"International journal of physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology","volume":"12 1","pages":"40-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7076325/pdf/ijppp0012-0040.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objective: Pectoral Nerve (PECs) block is a fascial plane block first described by Blanco et al. for postoperative analgesia in breast surgery. The procedure is now widely used, and several small clinical trials have been published and reported favorably on the analgesic efficacy of PECs block. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we will summarize the current evidence on the efficacy of PECs block.

Methods: We identified and analyzed 19 randomized control trials from PubMed, Central, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science citation index, US clinical trials register and Google Scholar. The primary outcome was 24-hour opioid requirement, and secondary outcomes included pain scores, postoperative nausea and vomiting and other complications.

Results: Compared to systemic analgesia, PECs block was associated with reduced 24 hours opioid requirement [mean difference (MD) = -10.66 mg], lower pain score [9-12 hours postoperatively: MD = -1.18; 24 hours postoperatively: MD = -0.79] and less frequent PONV [risk ratio (RR) = 0.37, numbers needed to treat (NNT) = 5]. While the failure rate of PECs block was not well defined, several studies reported significant intraoperative opioid requirement despite PECs block. Lastly, trial sequential analysis indicated that no more clinical trials are needed to demonstrate the opioid sparing effect of PECs block.

Conclusion: When compared to general anesthesia with systemic opioids, PECs block was associated with significantly better perioperative pain control. There are currently insufficient data on the complication and failure rate of PECs block in clinical practice.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
胸神经(PECs)阻滞用于术后镇痛:一项系统评价和荟萃分析,采用试验序贯分析。
背景与目的:胸神经阻滞(PECs)是由Blanco等人首次描述的用于乳房手术术后镇痛的筋膜面阻滞。该方法现在已被广泛应用,一些小型临床试验已经发表并报道了PECs阻滞的镇痛效果。在这篇系统综述和荟萃分析中,我们将总结目前关于PECs阻滞疗效的证据。方法:我们从PubMed、Central、EMBASE、CINAHL、Web of Science引文索引、美国临床试验注册和Google Scholar中检索和分析19项随机对照试验。主要结局是24小时阿片类药物需求,次要结局包括疼痛评分、术后恶心呕吐和其他并发症。结果:与全身镇痛相比,PECs阻滞可降低24小时阿片类药物需求[平均差值(MD) = -10.66 mg],降低疼痛评分[术后9-12小时:MD = -1.18;术后24小时:MD = -0.79],较少发生PONV[风险比(RR) = 0.37,需要治疗的人数(NNT) = 5]。虽然PECs阻滞的失败率没有很好的定义,但几项研究报告了尽管PECs阻滞,术中仍需要大量阿片类药物。最后,试验序列分析表明,不需要更多的临床试验来证明PECs阻滞的阿片类药物节约效果。结论:与全身阿片类药物全麻相比,PECs阻滞可显著改善围手术期疼痛控制。目前临床实践中关于PECs阻滞的并发症和失败率的数据不足。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Acute paracetamol toxicity-induced inflammatory and oxidative effects are relieved by Aleppo galls: a novel experimental study. Evaluation of PD-L1 antigen expression using immunohistochemistry technique in medullary thyroid carcinoma samples. Effectiveness of yoga on Ewing's battery autonomic function test: cross-sectional study. NAD+ administration profoundly decreases UVC-induced skin damage by attenuating oxidative stress, inflammation, DNA damage and apoptosis. Effect of Shenqi millet porridge on gastrointestinal function decline.
×
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