Katrine Tanggaard, Caroline Gronlund, Martin V Nielsen, Kirstine la Cour, Casper D Tvarnø, Jens Børglum, Mathias Maagaard, Ole Mathiesen
{"title":"用于腹腔内手术后疼痛治疗的腰前区阻滞:荟萃分析和试验序列分析的系统综述。","authors":"Katrine Tanggaard, Caroline Gronlund, Martin V Nielsen, Kirstine la Cour, Casper D Tvarnø, Jens Børglum, Mathias Maagaard, Ole Mathiesen","doi":"10.1111/aas.14526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The anterior quadratus lumborum (QL) block may be used for postoperative pain management for intra-abdominal surgeries, but the evidence is uncertain. We aimed to investigate the benefit and harm of the anterior QL block compared to placebo/no block for intra-abdominal surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials investigating anterior QL block for postoperative pain management for adult patients undergoing any intra-abdominal surgery. The two co-primary outcomes were cumulative 24-h opioid consumption and serious adverse events. We performed meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis (TSA), assessed the risk of bias, and present the certainty of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-five trials randomizing 2418 patients were included in the meta-analyses. Anterior QL block may reduce cumulative 24-h intravenous opioid consumption compared to placebo/no block (MD -10.42 mg, 96.7% CI -14.83 to -6.01, TSA-adjusted CI -17.03 to -3.82, p < .01). Two trials reported on SAEs. Anterior QL block may have little to no effect on the number of serious adverse events compared to placebo (RR 1.49, 96.7% CI 0.19 to 11.47, p = .68), but the evidence is very uncertain. All trial results were assessed as being high risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The anterior QL block may reduce cumulative 24-h opioid consumption. Reported serious adverse events were few and the anterior QL block may have little to no effect on the number of SAEs, but the evidence was very uncertain.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":"e14526"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anterior quadratus lumborum blocks for postoperative pain treatment following intra-abdominal surgery: A systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses.\",\"authors\":\"Katrine Tanggaard, Caroline Gronlund, Martin V Nielsen, Kirstine la Cour, Casper D Tvarnø, Jens Børglum, Mathias Maagaard, Ole Mathiesen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aas.14526\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The anterior quadratus lumborum (QL) block may be used for postoperative pain management for intra-abdominal surgeries, but the evidence is uncertain. We aimed to investigate the benefit and harm of the anterior QL block compared to placebo/no block for intra-abdominal surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials investigating anterior QL block for postoperative pain management for adult patients undergoing any intra-abdominal surgery. The two co-primary outcomes were cumulative 24-h opioid consumption and serious adverse events. We performed meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis (TSA), assessed the risk of bias, and present the certainty of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-five trials randomizing 2418 patients were included in the meta-analyses. Anterior QL block may reduce cumulative 24-h intravenous opioid consumption compared to placebo/no block (MD -10.42 mg, 96.7% CI -14.83 to -6.01, TSA-adjusted CI -17.03 to -3.82, p < .01). Two trials reported on SAEs. Anterior QL block may have little to no effect on the number of serious adverse events compared to placebo (RR 1.49, 96.7% CI 0.19 to 11.47, p = .68), but the evidence is very uncertain. All trial results were assessed as being high risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The anterior QL block may reduce cumulative 24-h opioid consumption. Reported serious adverse events were few and the anterior QL block may have little to no effect on the number of SAEs, but the evidence was very uncertain.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e14526\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14526\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14526","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:腰前肌阻滞(QL)可用于腹腔内手术的术后疼痛治疗,但相关证据尚不确定。我们的目的是研究腹腔内手术中前QL阻滞与安慰剂/无阻滞相比的利弊:我们在 Medline、Embase 和 CENTRAL 中检索了对接受任何腹腔内手术的成年患者进行 QL 前阻滞术后疼痛治疗的随机对照试验。两个共同主要结果是 24 小时阿片类药物累积用量和严重不良事件。我们进行了荟萃分析、试验序列分析(TSA),评估了偏倚风险,并采用建议、评估、发展和评价分级法对证据的确定性进行了评估:荟萃分析共纳入了35项试验,随机抽取了2418名患者。与安慰剂/无阻滞相比,QL前阻滞可减少24小时阿片类药物的累积静脉用量(MD -10.42 mg,96.7% CI -14.83 to -6.01,TSA调整后CI -17.03 to -3.82,P 结论:QL前阻滞可减少24小时阿片类药物的累积静脉用量:QL前阻滞可减少24小时阿片类药物的累积用量。报告的严重不良事件很少,QL前阻滞可能对SAE的数量几乎没有影响,但证据非常不确定。
Anterior quadratus lumborum blocks for postoperative pain treatment following intra-abdominal surgery: A systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses.
Background: The anterior quadratus lumborum (QL) block may be used for postoperative pain management for intra-abdominal surgeries, but the evidence is uncertain. We aimed to investigate the benefit and harm of the anterior QL block compared to placebo/no block for intra-abdominal surgery.
Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials investigating anterior QL block for postoperative pain management for adult patients undergoing any intra-abdominal surgery. The two co-primary outcomes were cumulative 24-h opioid consumption and serious adverse events. We performed meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis (TSA), assessed the risk of bias, and present the certainty of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
Results: Thirty-five trials randomizing 2418 patients were included in the meta-analyses. Anterior QL block may reduce cumulative 24-h intravenous opioid consumption compared to placebo/no block (MD -10.42 mg, 96.7% CI -14.83 to -6.01, TSA-adjusted CI -17.03 to -3.82, p < .01). Two trials reported on SAEs. Anterior QL block may have little to no effect on the number of serious adverse events compared to placebo (RR 1.49, 96.7% CI 0.19 to 11.47, p = .68), but the evidence is very uncertain. All trial results were assessed as being high risk of bias.
Conclusions: The anterior QL block may reduce cumulative 24-h opioid consumption. Reported serious adverse events were few and the anterior QL block may have little to no effect on the number of SAEs, but the evidence was very uncertain.
期刊介绍:
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.