超声引导下锁骨下阻滞的经典方法与肋锁骨方法的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析

IF 2.9 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2024-06-07 DOI:10.4103/ija.ija_1124_23
Heena Garg, Purva Makhija, Dhruv Jain, Shailendra Kumar, Lokesh Kashyap
{"title":"超声引导下锁骨下阻滞的经典方法与肋锁骨方法的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Heena Garg, Purva Makhija, Dhruv Jain, Shailendra Kumar, Lokesh Kashyap","doi":"10.4103/ija.ija_1124_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n The infraclavicular brachial plexus block (ICB) provides analgesia and anaesthesia of the upper limb. It is given using the classical or the more recently described costoclavicular (CC) approach at the level of cords. This systematic review aimed to assess which approach is better for the ICB in terms of onset, performance, and safety.\n \n \n \n This PROSPERO (vide registration number CRD42022361636) registered meta-analysis included randomised trials of patients undergoing upper limb surgery in ultrasound-guided ICB from MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and IRCTP from inception to March 2023. The quality of evidence was assessed using GradePro software. The primary outcomes were sensory and motor block onset time and the number of patients having complete block at 30 minutes. Secondary outcomes included block performance time (BPT), number of attempts, duration of the block, and any incidence of complications.\n \n \n \n Five trials with 374 adult patients (classic = 185, CC = 189) were included. No significant difference was found in the sensory (Mean difference (MD): 1.44 minutes [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.06, 5.95]; I2 = 95%; very low level of evidence (LOE); P = 0.53) and motor block onset times (MD: 0.83 minutes [95% CI: 0.96, 2.62]; I2 = 84%; very low LOE P = 0.36) and BPT (MD: 5.06 seconds [95% CI: 38.50, 48.63]; I2 = 98%; very low LOE; P = 0.82) in classic and CC approach of ICB. Trial sequential analysis revealed our sample size to be 0.65% of the required sample size to achieve 80% power, deeming our study underpowered.\n \n \n \n Costoclavicular approach was not superior or inferior to the classical technique for infraclavicular brachial plexus block. However, the quality of evidence is low and further studies are needed to corroborate the findings.\n","PeriodicalId":13339,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the classical approach and costoclavicular approach of ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Heena Garg, Purva Makhija, Dhruv Jain, Shailendra Kumar, Lokesh Kashyap\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ija.ija_1124_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n The infraclavicular brachial plexus block (ICB) provides analgesia and anaesthesia of the upper limb. It is given using the classical or the more recently described costoclavicular (CC) approach at the level of cords. This systematic review aimed to assess which approach is better for the ICB in terms of onset, performance, and safety.\\n \\n \\n \\n This PROSPERO (vide registration number CRD42022361636) registered meta-analysis included randomised trials of patients undergoing upper limb surgery in ultrasound-guided ICB from MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and IRCTP from inception to March 2023. The quality of evidence was assessed using GradePro software. The primary outcomes were sensory and motor block onset time and the number of patients having complete block at 30 minutes. Secondary outcomes included block performance time (BPT), number of attempts, duration of the block, and any incidence of complications.\\n \\n \\n \\n Five trials with 374 adult patients (classic = 185, CC = 189) were included. No significant difference was found in the sensory (Mean difference (MD): 1.44 minutes [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.06, 5.95]; I2 = 95%; very low level of evidence (LOE); P = 0.53) and motor block onset times (MD: 0.83 minutes [95% CI: 0.96, 2.62]; I2 = 84%; very low LOE P = 0.36) and BPT (MD: 5.06 seconds [95% CI: 38.50, 48.63]; I2 = 98%; very low LOE; P = 0.82) in classic and CC approach of ICB. Trial sequential analysis revealed our sample size to be 0.65% of the required sample size to achieve 80% power, deeming our study underpowered.\\n \\n \\n \\n Costoclavicular approach was not superior or inferior to the classical technique for infraclavicular brachial plexus block. However, the quality of evidence is low and further studies are needed to corroborate the findings.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":13339,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_1124_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_1124_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

锁骨下臂丛神经阻滞(ICB)可对上肢进行镇痛和麻醉。可采用经典方法或最近在锁骨水平采用的肋锁(CC)方法进行阻滞。本系统综述旨在评估 ICB 在起效、性能和安全性方面哪种方法更好。 这项PROSPERO(注册号:CRD42022361636)注册荟萃分析纳入了从开始到2023年3月期间MEDLINE、EMBASE、SCOPUS和IRCTP中关于超声引导ICB上肢手术患者的随机试验。证据质量采用 GradePro 软件进行评估。主要研究结果包括感觉和运动阻滞开始时间以及 30 分钟时完全阻滞的患者人数。次要结果包括阻滞表现时间(BPT)、尝试次数、阻滞持续时间以及任何并发症的发生率。 五项试验共纳入 374 名成年患者(经典 = 185,CC = 189)。结果显示,感觉阻滞(平均差(MD):1.44 分钟[95% 置信区间(CI):3.06, 5.95];I2 = 95%;极低证据等级(LOE);P = 0.53)和运动阻滞开始时间(MD:0.83 分钟 [95% CI: 0.96, 2.62];I2 = 84%;极低证据水平 (LOE) P = 0.36)和 BPT(MD:5.06 秒 [95% CI: 38.50, 48.63];I2 = 98%;极低证据水平 (LOE); P = 0.82)。试验序列分析表明,我们的样本量仅为达到 80% 功率所需样本量的 0.65%,因此我们的研究功率不足。 在锁骨下臂丛神经阻滞方面,肋锁途径与传统技术相比没有优劣之分。然而,证据质量较低,需要进一步研究来证实研究结果。
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
Comparison of the classical approach and costoclavicular approach of ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block: A systematic review and meta-analysis
The infraclavicular brachial plexus block (ICB) provides analgesia and anaesthesia of the upper limb. It is given using the classical or the more recently described costoclavicular (CC) approach at the level of cords. This systematic review aimed to assess which approach is better for the ICB in terms of onset, performance, and safety. This PROSPERO (vide registration number CRD42022361636) registered meta-analysis included randomised trials of patients undergoing upper limb surgery in ultrasound-guided ICB from MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and IRCTP from inception to March 2023. The quality of evidence was assessed using GradePro software. The primary outcomes were sensory and motor block onset time and the number of patients having complete block at 30 minutes. Secondary outcomes included block performance time (BPT), number of attempts, duration of the block, and any incidence of complications. Five trials with 374 adult patients (classic = 185, CC = 189) were included. No significant difference was found in the sensory (Mean difference (MD): 1.44 minutes [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.06, 5.95]; I2 = 95%; very low level of evidence (LOE); P = 0.53) and motor block onset times (MD: 0.83 minutes [95% CI: 0.96, 2.62]; I2 = 84%; very low LOE P = 0.36) and BPT (MD: 5.06 seconds [95% CI: 38.50, 48.63]; I2 = 98%; very low LOE; P = 0.82) in classic and CC approach of ICB. Trial sequential analysis revealed our sample size to be 0.65% of the required sample size to achieve 80% power, deeming our study underpowered. Costoclavicular approach was not superior or inferior to the classical technique for infraclavicular brachial plexus block. However, the quality of evidence is low and further studies are needed to corroborate the findings.
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
4.20
自引率
44.80%
发文量
210
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊最新文献
ABCs of anaesthesia private practice: Adapting, building and conquering. Anaesthetic management of a child with suspected Opitz-Kaveggia syndrome. Awake Seldinger technique-based tracheal intubation in near-total laryngeal obstruction. Bridging the pain gap after cancer surgery - Evaluating the feasibility of transitional pain service to prevent persistent postsurgical pain - A systematic review and meta-analysis. Challenges in central venous catheter placement due to thoracic venous anomaly in an infant - A case report.
×
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