腹部手术中的直肌鞘阻滞:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。

Yerkin Abdildin, Karina Tapinova, Azamat Salamat, Ramazan Shaimakhanov, Alisher Aitbayev, Dmitriy Viderman
{"title":"腹部手术中的直肌鞘阻滞:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Yerkin Abdildin,&nbsp;Karina Tapinova,&nbsp;Azamat Salamat,&nbsp;Ramazan Shaimakhanov,&nbsp;Alisher Aitbayev,&nbsp;Dmitriy Viderman","doi":"10.2478/rjaic-2023-0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>With the development of ultrasound-guided and laparoscopic techniques of rectus sheath block (RSB), regional analgesia promises to be efficient and safe. However, studies show controversial results. Our systematic review with meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effect of rectus sheath block in abdominal surgery.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 2021 for randomised controlled trials written in English. We included studies on adult populations undergoing abdominal surgery. The primary outcomes of our meta-analysis were postoperative pain intensity and postoperative opioid consumption. Data analysis was conducted using the Review Manager software (RevMan, v. 5.4). Statistical heterogeneity was estimated by the I<sup>2</sup> statistic. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Oxford quality scoring system (Jadad Scale).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in English with a total of 386 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Patients in the RSB group did not consume fewer anaesthetics and opioids after abdominal surgery when compared with patients in the control group. In addition, postoperative pain intensity (out of 10) was not lower in the RSB group when compared with the control group. Finally, RSB did not improve the time to the first opioid/analgesic (min) compared with the non-RSB option.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is no statistically significant evidence in favour of RSB over non-RSB in reducing anaesthetics and opioid consumption, postoperative pain intensity, and increasing time to first opioid/analgesic.</p>","PeriodicalId":21279,"journal":{"name":"Romanian journal of anaesthesia and intensive care","volume":"30 1","pages":"43-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/42/98/rjaic-30-1-rjaic-2023-0006.PMC10448445.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rectus Sheath Block in Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yerkin Abdildin,&nbsp;Karina Tapinova,&nbsp;Azamat Salamat,&nbsp;Ramazan Shaimakhanov,&nbsp;Alisher Aitbayev,&nbsp;Dmitriy Viderman\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/rjaic-2023-0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>With the development of ultrasound-guided and laparoscopic techniques of rectus sheath block (RSB), regional analgesia promises to be efficient and safe. However, studies show controversial results. Our systematic review with meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effect of rectus sheath block in abdominal surgery.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 2021 for randomised controlled trials written in English. We included studies on adult populations undergoing abdominal surgery. The primary outcomes of our meta-analysis were postoperative pain intensity and postoperative opioid consumption. Data analysis was conducted using the Review Manager software (RevMan, v. 5.4). Statistical heterogeneity was estimated by the I<sup>2</sup> statistic. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Oxford quality scoring system (Jadad Scale).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in English with a total of 386 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Patients in the RSB group did not consume fewer anaesthetics and opioids after abdominal surgery when compared with patients in the control group. In addition, postoperative pain intensity (out of 10) was not lower in the RSB group when compared with the control group. Finally, RSB did not improve the time to the first opioid/analgesic (min) compared with the non-RSB option.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is no statistically significant evidence in favour of RSB over non-RSB in reducing anaesthetics and opioid consumption, postoperative pain intensity, and increasing time to first opioid/analgesic.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21279,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Romanian journal of anaesthesia and intensive care\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"43-50\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/42/98/rjaic-30-1-rjaic-2023-0006.PMC10448445.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Romanian journal of anaesthesia and intensive care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/rjaic-2023-0006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Romanian journal of anaesthesia and intensive care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/rjaic-2023-0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景与目的:超声引导和腹腔镜下直肌鞘阻滞(rectus sheath block, RSB)技术的发展,使局部镇痛成为一种高效、安全的方法。然而,研究显示出有争议的结果。我们的系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估腹直肌鞘阻滞在腹部手术中的效果。方法:我们检索了PubMed、Google Scholar和Cochrane图书馆从成立到2021年10月的英文随机对照试验。我们纳入了接受腹部手术的成年人群的研究。我们荟萃分析的主要结果是术后疼痛强度和术后阿片类药物消耗。使用Review Manager软件(RevMan, v. 5.4)进行数据分析。采用I2统计量估计统计异质性。纳入研究的方法学质量采用牛津质量评分系统(Jadad量表)进行评估。结果:8项英文随机对照试验(RCTs)共纳入386例患者。与对照组患者相比,RSB组患者在腹部手术后并没有消耗更少的麻醉剂和阿片类药物。此外,与对照组相比,RSB组的术后疼痛强度(满分10分)并未降低。最后,与非RSB相比,RSB并没有改善到第一个阿片类药物/镇痛药的时间(分钟)。结论:在减少麻醉剂和阿片类药物的使用、术后疼痛强度以及增加首次使用阿片类药物/镇痛药的时间方面,RSB比非RSB有统计学意义的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Rectus Sheath Block in Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Background and aims: With the development of ultrasound-guided and laparoscopic techniques of rectus sheath block (RSB), regional analgesia promises to be efficient and safe. However, studies show controversial results. Our systematic review with meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effect of rectus sheath block in abdominal surgery.

Method: We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 2021 for randomised controlled trials written in English. We included studies on adult populations undergoing abdominal surgery. The primary outcomes of our meta-analysis were postoperative pain intensity and postoperative opioid consumption. Data analysis was conducted using the Review Manager software (RevMan, v. 5.4). Statistical heterogeneity was estimated by the I2 statistic. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Oxford quality scoring system (Jadad Scale).

Results: Eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in English with a total of 386 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Patients in the RSB group did not consume fewer anaesthetics and opioids after abdominal surgery when compared with patients in the control group. In addition, postoperative pain intensity (out of 10) was not lower in the RSB group when compared with the control group. Finally, RSB did not improve the time to the first opioid/analgesic (min) compared with the non-RSB option.

Conclusion: There is no statistically significant evidence in favour of RSB over non-RSB in reducing anaesthetics and opioid consumption, postoperative pain intensity, and increasing time to first opioid/analgesic.

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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Romanian Journal of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care is the official journal of the Romanian Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care and has been published continuously since 1994. It is intended mainly for anaesthesia and intensive care providers, but it is also aimed at specialists in emergency medical care and in pain research and management. The Journal is indexed in Scopus, Embase, PubMed Central as well as the databases of the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research (CNCSIS) B+ category. The Journal publishes two issues per year, the first one in April and the second one in October, and contains original articles, reviews, case reports, letters to the editor, book reviews and commentaries. The Journal is distributed free of charge to the members of the Romanian Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care.
期刊最新文献
The Impact of Anaesthesia on Hyperalgesia, Testosterone, Cortisol, C-Reactive Protein, and Glucose Levels After Spine Surgery: Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial A Randomised Controlled Study Comparing Pulse Pressure Variation (PPV) and Pleth Variability Index (PVI) for Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy Intraoperatively in Patients Undergoing Intracranial (Supratentorial ICSOLs) Surgeries. Rectus Sheath Block in Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Prevention of Pneumonia due to Ventilator in Critical Patients with U Shape Oral Hygiene Model: A Systematic Review. Pyroglutamic Acidosis - An Underrecognised Entity Associated with Acetaminophen Use.
×
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