Erector Spinae Plane Block versus Transversus Abdominis Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Journal of Investigative Surgery Pub Date : 2022-09-01 Epub Date: 2022-07-17 DOI:10.1080/08941939.2022.2098426
Lin Liheng, Cai Siyuan, Cai Zhen, Wu Changxue
{"title":"Erector Spinae Plane Block versus Transversus Abdominis Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Lin Liheng,&nbsp;Cai Siyuan,&nbsp;Cai Zhen,&nbsp;Wu Changxue","doi":"10.1080/08941939.2022.2098426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Regional anesthesia technique has been reported to exert excellent analgesic efficacy for various surgeries. Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block are good ways to relieve postoperative pain after abdominal surgery. However, the analgesic efficacy between them remains controversial. This meta-analysis evaluated the analgesic effect between these two blocks in abdominal surgery with statistical and clinical interpretation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov register, and Embase databases were systematically searched by two independent investigators from the inception to December 2021.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comprising 570 patients were included in the final meta-analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that ESPB decreased the opioid consumption and improved the pain scores during the first 24 postoperative hours compared with TAP groups statistically, while the magnitude of this difference did not reach the clinically significant threshold (10 mg of intravenous morphine consumption and 1.3 cm on the VAS scale). In addition, ESPB prolonged blockade duration and decreased the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, it did not improve the patients' satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although ESPB does not provide better clinical analgesia than the TAP block, it could be a comparable nerve block technique for abdominal wall analgesia.</p>","PeriodicalId":16200,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investigative Surgery","volume":"35 9","pages":"1711-1722"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investigative Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08941939.2022.2098426","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Regional anesthesia technique has been reported to exert excellent analgesic efficacy for various surgeries. Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block are good ways to relieve postoperative pain after abdominal surgery. However, the analgesic efficacy between them remains controversial. This meta-analysis evaluated the analgesic effect between these two blocks in abdominal surgery with statistical and clinical interpretation.

Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov register, and Embase databases were systematically searched by two independent investigators from the inception to December 2021.

Results: 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comprising 570 patients were included in the final meta-analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that ESPB decreased the opioid consumption and improved the pain scores during the first 24 postoperative hours compared with TAP groups statistically, while the magnitude of this difference did not reach the clinically significant threshold (10 mg of intravenous morphine consumption and 1.3 cm on the VAS scale). In addition, ESPB prolonged blockade duration and decreased the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, it did not improve the patients' satisfaction.

Conclusions: Although ESPB does not provide better clinical analgesia than the TAP block, it could be a comparable nerve block technique for abdominal wall analgesia.

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
竖脊肌平面阻滞与腹横平面阻滞对腹部手术术后镇痛的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:区域麻醉技术已被报道在各种手术中具有良好的镇痛效果。竖脊平面阻滞(ESPB)和腹横平面阻滞(TAP)是缓解腹部手术后疼痛的好方法。然而,它们之间的镇痛效果仍存在争议。本meta分析评估了这两种阻滞在腹部手术中的镇痛效果,并进行了统计和临床解释。方法:从研究开始到2021年12月,由两名独立研究者系统地检索PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane图书馆、ClinicalTrials.gov注册和Embase数据库。结果:10项随机对照试验(rct)包括570例患者被纳入最终的荟萃分析。meta分析显示,与TAP组相比,ESPB组术后前24小时阿片类药物消耗减少,疼痛评分改善,但差异幅度未达到临床显著阈值(静脉吗啡消耗10 mg, VAS评分1.3 cm)。此外,ESPB延长阻断持续时间,减少术后恶心和呕吐(PONV)的发生。然而,它并没有提高患者的满意度。结论:虽然ESPB的临床镇痛效果不如TAP阻滞,但它可以作为一种可比较的用于腹壁镇痛的神经阻滞技术。
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
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
114
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Investigative Surgery publishes peer-reviewed scientific articles for the advancement of surgery, to the ultimate benefit of patient care and rehabilitation. It is the only journal that encompasses the individual and collaborative efforts of scientists in human and veterinary medicine, dentistry, basic and applied sciences, engineering, and law and ethics. The journal is dedicated to the publication of outstanding articles of interest to the surgical research community.
期刊最新文献
Anterior, Posterior and Anterior-Posterior Approaches for the Treatment of Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. The HIF-1α/PKM2 Feedback Loop in Relation to EGFR Mutational Status in Lung Adenocarcinoma. Posttranscriptional Regulation of Intestinal Mucosal Growth and Adaptation by Noncoding RNAs in Critical Surgical Disorders. Statement of Retraction: Liver X Receptors Activation Attenuates Ischemia Reperfusion Injury of Liver Graft in Rats. Correlation Between Basal Metabolic Rate and Clinical Outcomes in Gastric Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Study.
×
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