脊柱手术患者应用竖脊肌平面阻滞与胸腰椎筋膜间平面阻滞的疗效和安全性:一项系统综述和meta分析。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Clinical Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1097/AJP.0000000000001177
Qing Peng, Bo Meng, Sheng Yang, Zhenghu Ban, Yu Zhang, Man Hu, Wenjie Zhao, Haisheng Wu, Yuping Tao, Liang Zhang
{"title":"脊柱手术患者应用竖脊肌平面阻滞与胸腰椎筋膜间平面阻滞的疗效和安全性:一项系统综述和meta分析。","authors":"Qing Peng, Bo Meng, Sheng Yang, Zhenghu Ban, Yu Zhang, Man Hu, Wenjie Zhao, Haisheng Wu, Yuping Tao, Liang Zhang","doi":"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>As 2 novel peripheral nerve blocks, the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and thoracolumbar interfascial plane (TLIP) block can relieve postoperative pain in spinal surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ESPB versus TLIP block in patients undergoing spine surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An extensive search of English online databases, including PubMed, Web of Sciences, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Chinese online databases like Wanfang Data, CNKI, and CQVIP until March 31, 2023, with no language restrictions, was performed. This systematic review and meta-analysis are based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and have been registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) with registered ID: CRD42023420987.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five studies involving 457 patients were eligible for inclusion in this study. Compared with TLIP block, ESPB had lower postoperative opioid consumption at postoperative 48 hours (standard mean difference =-1.31, 95% CI:-2.54 to -0.08, P =0.04, I2 =80%) and postoperative pain score at postoperative 24 hours (standard mean difference =-0.72, 95% CI=-1.43 to -0.02, P =0.04, I2 =95%) in patients undergoing spine surgery. Complications associated with ESPB and TLIP block were not reported in the included studies.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>ESPB and TLIP block are 2 novel and effective block methods. Patients receiving ESPB had lower postoperative opioid consumption and postoperative pain scores compared with patients receiving TLIP block; there was no statistically significant difference's between the 2 groups in intraoperative opioid consumption, adverse events, and rescue analgesia.</p>","PeriodicalId":50678,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of Pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and Safety of Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Thoracolumbar Interfascial Plane Block in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Qing Peng, Bo Meng, Sheng Yang, Zhenghu Ban, Yu Zhang, Man Hu, Wenjie Zhao, Haisheng Wu, Yuping Tao, Liang Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001177\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>As 2 novel peripheral nerve blocks, the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and thoracolumbar interfascial plane (TLIP) block can relieve postoperative pain in spinal surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ESPB versus TLIP block in patients undergoing spine surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An extensive search of English online databases, including PubMed, Web of Sciences, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Chinese online databases like Wanfang Data, CNKI, and CQVIP until March 31, 2023, with no language restrictions, was performed. This systematic review and meta-analysis are based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and have been registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) with registered ID: CRD42023420987.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five studies involving 457 patients were eligible for inclusion in this study. Compared with TLIP block, ESPB had lower postoperative opioid consumption at postoperative 48 hours (standard mean difference =-1.31, 95% CI:-2.54 to -0.08, P =0.04, I2 =80%) and postoperative pain score at postoperative 24 hours (standard mean difference =-0.72, 95% CI=-1.43 to -0.02, P =0.04, I2 =95%) in patients undergoing spine surgery. Complications associated with ESPB and TLIP block were not reported in the included studies.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>ESPB and TLIP block are 2 novel and effective block methods. Patients receiving ESPB had lower postoperative opioid consumption and postoperative pain scores compared with patients receiving TLIP block; there was no statistically significant difference's between the 2 groups in intraoperative opioid consumption, adverse events, and rescue analgesia.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50678,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"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.0000000000001177\",\"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.0000000000001177","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:直立脊柱平面阻滞(ESPB)和胸腰椎筋膜间平面阻滞(lip)作为两种新型的周围神经阻滞,可以缓解脊柱手术术后疼痛。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在确定ESPB与TLIP阻滞在脊柱手术患者中的疗效和安全性。方法:截至2023年3月31日,广泛检索PubMed、Web of Sciences、Embase、Medline、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials等英文在线数据库和万方数据、CNKI、CQVIP等中文在线数据库,无语言限制。该系统评价和荟萃分析基于PRISMA声明,并已在PROSPERO(国际前瞻性系统评价注册系统)上注册,注册ID: CRD42023420987。结果:5项研究纳入457例患者。与TLIP阻滞相比,ESPB术后48小时阿片类药物消耗(SMD=-1.31, 95% CI=-2.54 ~ -0.08, P=0.04, I2=80%)和术后24小时疼痛评分(SMD=-0.72, 95% CI=-1.43 ~ -0.02, P=0.04, I2=95%)较脊柱手术患者低。在纳入的研究中未报告ESPB和TLIP阻滞相关的并发症。讨论:ESPB和lip封块是两种新颖有效的封块方法。与TLIP阻滞组相比,ESPB组患者术后阿片类药物消耗和术后疼痛评分较低,两组在术中阿片类药物消耗、不良事件和抢救镇痛方面差异无统计学意义。
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
Efficacy and Safety of Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Thoracolumbar Interfascial Plane Block in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Objectives: As 2 novel peripheral nerve blocks, the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and thoracolumbar interfascial plane (TLIP) block can relieve postoperative pain in spinal surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ESPB versus TLIP block in patients undergoing spine surgery.

Methods: An extensive search of English online databases, including PubMed, Web of Sciences, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Chinese online databases like Wanfang Data, CNKI, and CQVIP until March 31, 2023, with no language restrictions, was performed. This systematic review and meta-analysis are based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and have been registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) with registered ID: CRD42023420987.

Results: Five studies involving 457 patients were eligible for inclusion in this study. Compared with TLIP block, ESPB had lower postoperative opioid consumption at postoperative 48 hours (standard mean difference =-1.31, 95% CI:-2.54 to -0.08, P =0.04, I2 =80%) and postoperative pain score at postoperative 24 hours (standard mean difference =-0.72, 95% CI=-1.43 to -0.02, P =0.04, I2 =95%) in patients undergoing spine surgery. Complications associated with ESPB and TLIP block were not reported in the included studies.

Discussion: ESPB and TLIP block are 2 novel and effective block methods. Patients receiving ESPB had lower postoperative opioid consumption and postoperative pain scores compared with patients receiving TLIP block; there was no statistically significant difference's between the 2 groups in intraoperative opioid consumption, adverse events, and rescue analgesia.

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
Application of the IASP Grading System to Identify Underlying Pain Mechanisms in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective Cohort Study. Retrospective Analysis of Fibromyalgia: Exploring the Interplay Between Various Triggers and Fibromyalgia's Severity. Genicular Nerve Block for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. Is Social Support Associated With Clinical Outcomes in Adults With Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain? A Systematic Review. Narrative Accounts of Youth and Their Mothers With Chronic Headache: Application of a Socio-narratology Framework to Pain Narratives.
×
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