局部麻醉与全麻在经皮椎板间内镜椎间盘切除术中的比较:一项荟萃分析。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Clinical Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1097/AJP.0000000000001111
Lei Han, Jianjian Yin, Xijia Jiang, Luming Nong
{"title":"局部麻醉与全麻在经皮椎板间内镜椎间盘切除术中的比较:一项荟萃分析。","authors":"Lei Han,&nbsp;Jianjian Yin,&nbsp;Xijia Jiang,&nbsp;Luming Nong","doi":"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of local anesthesia (LA) and general anesthesia (GA) in percutaneous interlaminar endoscopic discectomy (PIED).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EuropePMC, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, and CNKI databases for all relevant studies. All statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 6 articles with 549 study participants were included, with 282 patients in LA group and 267 patients in GA group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the LA group had significantly better results in hospital stay time (mean difference [MD], -1.68; 95% CI, -3.35 to -0.01) and hospital costs (MD, -0.57, 95% CI, -1.02 to -0.12) compared with the GA group; whereas Oswestry Disability Index (MD, 0.48; 95% CI, -0.07 to 1.04), Visual Analog Scale Scores (MD, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.13), postoperative transient dysesthesia and weakness (odds ratio [OR], 0.83, 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.69), dura and nerve root injury (OR, 0.21, 95% CI, 0.03 to 1.25), operation time (MD, -3.51; 95% CI, -11.5 to 4.48), and willingness rate to receive the same procedure(OR, 0.12, 95% CI, 0.01 to 1.00) showed no significant differences between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>LA can effectively relieve pain during PIED surgery and ensure the safety of operation without increasing the occurrence of postoperative complications. PIED under LA not only has similar patient satisfaction but also shows obvious advantages in shortening hospital stay and reducing hospital costs compared with GA surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":50678,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of Pain","volume":"39 6","pages":"297-304"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Local Anesthesia Versus General Anesthesia in Percutaneous Interlaminar Endoscopic Discectomy: A Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Lei Han,&nbsp;Jianjian Yin,&nbsp;Xijia Jiang,&nbsp;Luming Nong\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001111\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of local anesthesia (LA) and general anesthesia (GA) in percutaneous interlaminar endoscopic discectomy (PIED).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EuropePMC, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, and CNKI databases for all relevant studies. All statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 6 articles with 549 study participants were included, with 282 patients in LA group and 267 patients in GA group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the LA group had significantly better results in hospital stay time (mean difference [MD], -1.68; 95% CI, -3.35 to -0.01) and hospital costs (MD, -0.57, 95% CI, -1.02 to -0.12) compared with the GA group; whereas Oswestry Disability Index (MD, 0.48; 95% CI, -0.07 to 1.04), Visual Analog Scale Scores (MD, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.13), postoperative transient dysesthesia and weakness (odds ratio [OR], 0.83, 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.69), dura and nerve root injury (OR, 0.21, 95% CI, 0.03 to 1.25), operation time (MD, -3.51; 95% CI, -11.5 to 4.48), and willingness rate to receive the same procedure(OR, 0.12, 95% CI, 0.01 to 1.00) showed no significant differences between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>LA can effectively relieve pain during PIED surgery and ensure the safety of operation without increasing the occurrence of postoperative complications. PIED under LA not only has similar patient satisfaction but also shows obvious advantages in shortening hospital stay and reducing hospital costs compared with GA surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50678,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":\"39 6\",\"pages\":\"297-304\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001111\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001111","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:系统评价局麻(LA)和全麻(GA)在经皮椎板间内镜椎间盘切除术(PIED)中的安全性和有效性。材料和方法:检索MEDLINE、EMBASE、EuropePMC、PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane和CNKI数据库,查找所有相关研究。所有统计分析均使用Review Manager 5.3版本进行。结果:共纳入6篇文献,549名受试者,其中LA组282例,GA组267例。meta分析结果显示,LA组在住院时间上有明显更好的结果(平均差[MD], -1.68;与GA组相比,95% CI, -3.35 ~ -0.01)和医院费用(MD, -0.57, 95% CI, -1.02 ~ -0.12);Oswestry残疾指数(MD, 0.48);95% CI, -0.07至1.04),视觉模拟量表评分(MD, -0.05;95% CI, -0.24 ~ 0.13),术后一过性感觉不良和虚弱(比值比[OR], 0.83, 95% CI, 0.40 ~ 1.69),硬脑膜和神经根损伤(OR, 0.21, 95% CI, 0.03 ~ 1.25),手术时间(MD, -3.51;95% CI, -11.5 ~ 4.48)和接受相同手术的意愿率(OR, 0.12, 95% CI, 0.01 ~ 1.00)显示两组间无显著差异。讨论:LA能有效缓解PIED手术过程中的疼痛,保证手术安全,且不增加术后并发症的发生。与GA手术相比,LA下的PIED不仅具有相似的患者满意度,而且在缩短住院时间和降低住院费用方面具有明显的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Local Anesthesia Versus General Anesthesia in Percutaneous Interlaminar Endoscopic Discectomy: A Meta-analysis.

Objective: The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of local anesthesia (LA) and general anesthesia (GA) in percutaneous interlaminar endoscopic discectomy (PIED).

Materials and methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EuropePMC, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, and CNKI databases for all relevant studies. All statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3.

Results: A total of 6 articles with 549 study participants were included, with 282 patients in LA group and 267 patients in GA group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the LA group had significantly better results in hospital stay time (mean difference [MD], -1.68; 95% CI, -3.35 to -0.01) and hospital costs (MD, -0.57, 95% CI, -1.02 to -0.12) compared with the GA group; whereas Oswestry Disability Index (MD, 0.48; 95% CI, -0.07 to 1.04), Visual Analog Scale Scores (MD, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.13), postoperative transient dysesthesia and weakness (odds ratio [OR], 0.83, 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.69), dura and nerve root injury (OR, 0.21, 95% CI, 0.03 to 1.25), operation time (MD, -3.51; 95% CI, -11.5 to 4.48), and willingness rate to receive the same procedure(OR, 0.12, 95% CI, 0.01 to 1.00) showed no significant differences between the 2 groups.

Discussion: LA can effectively relieve pain during PIED surgery and ensure the safety of operation without increasing the occurrence of postoperative complications. PIED under LA not only has similar patient satisfaction but also shows obvious advantages in shortening hospital stay and reducing hospital costs compared with GA surgery.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Journal of Pain
Clinical Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
118
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​The Clinical Journal of Pain explores all aspects of pain and its effective treatment, bringing readers the insights of leading anesthesiologists, surgeons, internists, neurologists, orthopedists, psychiatrists and psychologists, clinical pharmacologists, and rehabilitation medicine specialists. This peer-reviewed journal presents timely and thought-provoking articles on clinical dilemmas in pain management; valuable diagnostic procedures; promising new pharmacological, surgical, and other therapeutic modalities; psychosocial dimensions of pain; and ethical issues of concern to all medical professionals. The journal also publishes Special Topic issues on subjects of particular relevance to the practice of pain medicine.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of Perineural Dexmedetomidine in Ultrasound-guided Interscalene Block on Rebound Pain After Shoulder Arthroscopy. Occurrence of Opioid-Related Neurocognitive Symptoms Associated With Long-term Opioid Therapy. Study on the Effectiveness of Ultrasound-guided Pulsed Radiofrequency Therapy for Shoulder Pain Caused by Trigger Points. Assessment of Relationship Between Dietary Factors, Socioeconomic Factors, Behavioral Factors, Physical Measurement, and Risk of Migraine: A Univariable and Multivariable Mendelian Randomization Study. Comparing Analgesic Efficacies of Combined Fascial Plane Blocks for Postoperative Pain Following Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.
×
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