-
F1000Research 2023: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the preferred treatment for the removal of large kidney stones, sized >20 mm. However, there is still an ongoing debate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the preferred treatment for the removal of large kidney stones, sized >20 mm. However, there is still an ongoing debate concerning the best anesthesia for PCNL. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety between general and spinal anesthesia for PCNL. : A systematic review and meta-analysis study. A systematic, electronic literature search was performed in several databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar until July 1 , 2022. The quality of the articles was examined using Crombie's Items (for non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs)) and Jadad Scale (for RCTs). The outcomes assessed were operation time, fluoroscopy time, length of stay, stone-free rate, overall complication rate, specific postoperative complications, cost, pain score, and postoperative analgesic requirement. The article selection was reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We assessed four RCTs and eight retrospective studies. Meta-analysis of selected studies was performed using the Review Manager 5.3. General anesthesia resulted in fewer Clavien-Dindo grade II (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.49 - 0.94; p=0.02), major complications (OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.45 - 0.94; p=0.02, and lower transfusion rates (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.53 - 0.94; p=0.02). Whereas spinal anesthesia resulted in faster operation time (Mean Difference: -12.98; 95% CI: -20.56 - -5.41; p<0.001, fluoroscopy time (MD: -26.15; 95% CI: -42.79 - -9.50; p=0.002), reduced length of stay (MD: -0.47; 95% CI: -0.75 - 0.20; p<0.001), and lower postoperative analgesic requirement and cost. No significant difference in stone-free rate (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.92 - 1.26; p=0.37). PCNL performed using either general anesthesia or spinal anesthesia is equally safe and effective. Each method of anesthesia has its own advantages and disadvantages. The final choice between general and spinal anesthesia should be based on the patient's condition and surgical team preference.
Topics: Humans; Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous; Anesthesia, Spinal; Anesthesia, General; Anesthesiology; Analgesics
PubMed: 38618023
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.124704.2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations and techniques are available to dentists.
OBJECTIVES
Our primary objectives were to compare the success of anaesthesia, the speed of onset and duration of anaesthesia, and systemic and local adverse effects amongst different local anaesthetic formulations for dental anaesthesia. We define success of anaesthesia as absence of pain during a dental procedure, or a negative response to electric pulp testing or other simulated scenario tests. We define dental anaesthesia as anaesthesia given at the time of any dental intervention.Our secondary objective was to report on patients' experience of the procedures carried out.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (OVID SP), Embase, CINAHL PLUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, and other resources up to 31 January 2018. Other resources included trial registries, handsearched journals, conference proceedings, bibliographies/reference lists, and unpublished research.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing different formulations of local anaesthetic used for clinical procedures or simulated scenarios. Studies could apply a parallel or cross-over design.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological approaches for data collection and analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 123 studies (19,223 participants) in the review. We pooled data from 68 studies (6615 participants) for meta-analysis, yielding 23 comparisons of local anaesthetic and 57 outcomes with 14 different formulations. Only 10 outcomes from eight comparisons involved clinical testing.We assessed the included studies as having low risk of bias in most domains. Seventy-three studies had at least one domain with unclear risk of bias. Fifteen studies had at least one domain with high risk of bias due to inadequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, masking of local anaesthetic cartridges for administrators or outcome assessors, or participant dropout or exclusion.We reported results for the eight most important comparisons.Success of anaesthesiaWhen the success of anaesthesia in posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring root canal treatment is tested, 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine, may be superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (31% with 2% lidocaine vs 49% with 4% articaine; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 2.32; 4 parallel studies; 203 participants; low-quality evidence).When the success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures and surgical procedures/periodontal treatment, respectively, was tested, 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin (66% with 3% prilocaine vs 76% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; 2 parallel studies; 907 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and 4% prilocaine plain (71% with 4% prilocaine vs 83% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; 2 parallel studies; 228 participants; low-quality evidence) were inferior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine.Comparative effects of 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine on success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures are uncertain (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.02; 3 parallel studies; 930 participants; very low-quality evidence).Comparative effects of 0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.83; 2 cross-over studies; 37 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.07 to 5.12; 2 cross-over studies; 31 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction are uncertain.Comparative effects of 2% mepivacaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 3.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 23.82; 1 parallel and 1 cross-over study; 110 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.25 to 5.45; 2 parallel studies; 68 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction and teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring endodontic access and instrumentation, respectively, are uncertain.For remaining outcomes, assessing success of dental local anaesthesia via meta-analyses was not possible.Onset and duration of anaesthesiaFor comparisons assessing onset and duration, no clinical studies met our outcome definitions.Adverse effects (continuous pain measured on 170-mm Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS))Differences in post-injection pain between 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine are small, as measured on a VAS (mean difference (MD) 4.74 mm, 95% CI -1.98 to 11.46 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 314 interventions; moderate-quality evidence). Lidocaine probably resulted in slightly less post-injection pain than articaine (MD 6.41 mm, 95% CI 1.01 to 11.80 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 309 interventions; moderate-quality evidence) on the same VAS.For remaining comparisons assessing local and systemic adverse effects, meta-analyses were not possible. Other adverse effects were rare and minor.Patients' experiencePatients' experience of procedures was not assessed owing to lack of data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For success (absence of pain), low-quality evidence suggests that 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine for root treating of posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 4% prilocaine plain when surgical procedures/periodontal treatment was provided. Moderate-quality evidence shows that 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin when surgical procedures were performed.Adverse events were rare. Moderate-quality evidence shows no difference in pain on injection when 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared, although lidocaine resulted in slightly less pain following injection.Many outcomes tested our primary objectives in simulated scenarios, although clinical alternatives may not be possible.Further studies are needed to increase the strength of the evidence. These studies should be clearly reported, have low risk of bias with adequate sample size, and provide data in a format that will allow meta-analysis. Once assessed, results of the 34 'Studies awaiting classification (full text unavailable)' may alter the conclusions of the review.
Topics: Anesthesia, Dental; Anesthetics, Local; Dental Care; Humans; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29990391
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006487.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Operations on structures in the chest (usually the lungs) involve cutting between the ribs (thoracotomy). Severe post-thoracotomy pain can result from pleural (lung... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Operations on structures in the chest (usually the lungs) involve cutting between the ribs (thoracotomy). Severe post-thoracotomy pain can result from pleural (lung lining) and muscular damage, costovertebral joint (ribcage) disruption and intercostal nerve (nerves that run along the ribs) damage during surgery. Poor pain relief after surgery can impede recovery and increase the risks of developing complications such as lung collapse, chest infections and blood clots due to ineffective breathing and clearing of secretions. Effective management of acute pain following thoracotomy may prevent these complications and reduce the likelihood of developing chronic pain. A multi-modal approach to analgesia is widely employed by thoracic anaesthetists using a combination of regional anaesthetic blockade and systemic analgesia, with both non-opioid and opioid medications and local anaesthesia blockade.There is some evidence that blocking the nerves as they emerge from the spinal column (paravertebral block, PVB) may be associated with a lower risk of major complications in thoracic surgery but the majority of thoracic anaesthetists still prefer to use a thoracic epidural blockade (TEB) as analgesia for their patients undergoing thoracotomy. In order to bring about a change in practice, anaesthetists need a review that evaluates the risk of all major complications associated with thoracic epidural and paravertebral block in thoracotomy.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the two regional techniques of TEB and PVB in adults undergoing elective thoracotomy with respect to:1. analgesic efficacy;2. the incidence of major complications (including mortality);3. the incidence of minor complications;4. length of hospital stay;5. cost effectiveness.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 9); MEDLINE via Ovid (1966 to 16 October 2013); EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 16 October 2013); CINAHL via EBSCO host (1982 to 16 October 2013); and reference lists of retrieved studies. We handsearched the Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia (16 October 2013). We reran the search on 31st January 2015. We found one additional study which is awaiting classification and will be addressed when we update the review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PVB with TEB in thoracotomy, including upper gastrointestinal surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors (JY and SG) independently assessed the studies for inclusion and then extracted data as eligible for inclusion in qualitative and quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 studies with a total of 698 participants undergoing thoracotomy. There are two studies awaiting classification. The studies demonstrated high heterogeneity in insertion and use of both regional techniques, reflecting real-world differences in the anaesthesia techniques. Overall, the included studies have a moderate to high potential for bias, lacking details of randomization, group allocation concealment or arrangements to blind participants or outcome assessors. There was low to very low-quality evidence that showed no significant difference in 30-day mortality (2 studies, 125 participants. risk ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 4.23, P value = 0.68) and major complications (cardiovascular: 2 studies, 114 participants. Hypotension RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.62, P value = 0.45; arrhythmias RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.29, P value = 0.36, myocardial infarction RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.13, 76.42, P value = 0.47); respiratory: 5 studies, 280 participants. RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.52, P value = 0.30). There was moderate-quality evidence that showed comparable analgesic efficacy across all time points both at rest and after coughing or physiotherapy (14 studies, 698 participants). There was moderate-quality evidence that showed PVB had a better minor complication profile than TEB including hypotension (8 studies, 445 participants. RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.38, P value < 0.0001), nausea and vomiting (6 studies, 345 participants. RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.75, P value = 0.001), pruritis (5 studies, 249 participants. RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.59, P value = 0.0005) and urinary retention (5 studies, 258 participants. RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46, P value < 0.0001). There was insufficient data in chronic pain (six or 12 months). There was no difference found in and length of hospital stay (3 studies, 124 participants). We found no studies that reported costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Paravertebral blockade reduced the risks of developing minor complications compared to thoracic epidural blockade. Paravertebral blockade was as effective as thoracic epidural blockade in controlling acute pain. There was a lack of evidence in other outcomes. There was no difference in 30-day mortality, major complications, or length of hospital stay. There was insufficient data on chronic pain and costs. Results from this review should be interpreted with caution due to the heterogeneity of the included studies and the lack of reliable evidence. Future studies in this area need well-conducted, adequately-powered RCTs that focus not only on acute pain but also on major complications, chronic pain, length of stay and costs.
Topics: Acute Pain; Anesthesia, Epidural; Delirium; Humans; Hypotension; Length of Stay; Lung Diseases; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thoracotomy
PubMed: 26897642
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009121.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2003Fasting before general anaesthesia aims to reduce the volume and acidity of stomach contents during surgery, thus reducing the risk of regurgitation/aspiration. Recent... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fasting before general anaesthesia aims to reduce the volume and acidity of stomach contents during surgery, thus reducing the risk of regurgitation/aspiration. Recent guidelines have recommended a shift in fasting policy from the standard 'nil by mouth from midnight' approach to more relaxed policies which permit a period of restricted fluid intake up to a few hours before surgery. The evidence underpinning these guidelines however, was scattered across a range of journals, in a variety of languages, used a variety of outcome measures and methodologies to evaluate fasting regimens that differed in duration and the type and volume of intake permitted during a restricted fasting period. Practice has been slow to change.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the effect of different preoperative fasting regimens (duration, type and volume of permitted intake) on perioperative complications and patient wellbeing (including aspiration, regurgitation and related morbidity, thirst, hunger, pain, nausea, vomiting, anxiety) in different adult populations.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Electronic databases, conference proceedings and reference lists from relevant articles were searched for studies of preoperative fasting in August 2003 and experts in the area were consulted.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials which compared the effect on postoperative complications of different preoperative fasting regimens on adults were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Details of the eligible studies were independently extracted by two reviewers and where relevant information was unavailable from the text attempts were made to contact the authors.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty eight randomised controlled comparisons (made within 22 trials) were identified. Most were based on 'healthy' adult participants who were not considered to be at increased risk of regurgitation or aspiration during anaesthesia. Few trials reported the incidence of aspiration/regurgitation or related morbidity but relied on indirect measures of patient safety i.e. intra-operative gastric volume and pH. There was no evidence that the volume or pH of participants' gastric contents differed significantly depending on whether the groups were permitted a shortened preoperative fluid fast or continued a standard fast. Fluids evaluated included water, coffee, fruit juice, clear fluids and other drinks (e.g. isotonic drink, carbohydrate drink). Participants given a drink of water preoperatively were found to have a significantly lower volume of gastric contents than the groups that followed a standard fasting regimen. This difference was modest and clinically insignificant. There was no indication that the volume of fluid permitted during the preoperative period (i.e. low or high) resulted in a difference in outcomes from those participants that followed a standard fast. Few trials specifically investigated the preoperative fasting regimen for patient populations considered to be at increased risk during anaesthesia of regurgitation/aspiration and related morbidity.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
There was no evidence to suggest a shortened fluid fast results in an increased risk of aspiration, regurgitation or related morbidity compared with the standard 'nil by mouth from midnight' fasting policy. Permitting patients to drink water preoperatively resulted in significantly lower gastric volumes. Clinicians should be encouraged to appraise this evidence for themselves and when necessary adjust any remaining standard fasting policies (nil-by-mouth from midnight) for patients that are not considered 'at-risk' during anaesthesia.
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, General; Drinking; Fasting; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Intraoperative Complications; Pneumonia, Aspiration; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 14584013
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004423 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2012Traditional epidural techniques have been associated with prolonged labour, use of oxytocin augmentation and increased incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Traditional epidural techniques have been associated with prolonged labour, use of oxytocin augmentation and increased incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. The combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique has been introduced in an attempt to reduce these adverse effects. CSE is believed to improve maternal mobility during labour and provide more rapid onset of analgesia than epidural analgesia, which could contribute to increased maternal satisfaction.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the relative effects of CSE versus epidural analgesia during labour.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 September 2011) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We updated the search on 30 June 2012 and added the results to the awaiting classification section.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving a comparison of CSE with epidural analgesia initiated for women in the first stage of labour. Cluster-randomised trials were considered for inclusion. Quasi RCTs and cross-over trials were not considered for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed the trials identified from the searches for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Data were checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-seven trials involving 3274 women met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-six outcomes in two sets of comparisons involving CSE versus traditional epidurals and CSE versus low-dose epidural techniques were analysed.Of the CSE versus traditional epidural analyses five outcomes showed a significant difference. CSE was more favourable in relation to speed of onset of analgesia from time of injection (mean difference (MD) -2.87 minutes; 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.07 to -0.67; two trials, 129 women); the need for rescue analgesia (risk ratio (RR) 0.31; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.70; one trial, 42 women); urinary retention (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; one trial, 704 women); and rate of instrumental delivery (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97; six trials, 1015 women). Traditional epidural was more favourable in relation to umbilical venous pH (MD -0.03; 95% CI -0.06 to -0.00; one trial, 55 women). There were no data on maternal satisfaction, blood patch for post dural puncture headache, respiratory depression, umbilical cord pH, rare neurological complications, analgesia for caesarean section after analgesic intervention or any economic/use of resources outcomes for this comparison. No differences between CSE and traditional epidural were identified for mobilisation in labour, the need for labour augmentation, the rate of caesarean birth, incidence of post dural puncture headache, maternal hypotension, neonatal Apgar scores or umbilical arterial pH.For CSE versus low-dose epidurals, three outcomes were statistically significant. Two of these reflected a faster onset of effective analgesia from time of injection with CSE and the third was of more pruritus with CSE compared to low-dose epidural (average RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.22 to 2.65; 11 trials, 959 women; random-effects, T² = 0.26, I² = 84%). There was no significant difference in maternal satisfaction (average RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.05; seven trials, 520 women; random-effects, T² = 0.00, I² = 45%). There were no data on respiratory depression, maternal sedation or the need for labour augmentation. No differences between CSE and low-dose epidural were identified for need for rescue analgesia, mobilisation in labour, incidence of post dural puncture headache, known dural tap, blood patch for post dural headache, urinary retention, nausea/vomiting, hypotension, headache, the need for labour augmentation, mode of delivery, umbilical pH, Apgar score or admissions to the neonatal unit.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There appears to be little basis for offering CSE over epidurals in labour, with no difference in overall maternal satisfaction despite a slightly faster onset with CSE and conversely less pruritus with low-dose epidurals. There was no difference in ability to mobilise, maternal hypotension, rate of caesarean birth or neonatal outcome. However, the significantly higher incidence of urinary retention, rescue interventions and instrumental deliveries with traditional techniques would favour the use of low-dose epidurals. It is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding rare complications such as nerve injury and meningitis.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Epidural; Anesthesia, Spinal; Female; Humans; Labor, Obstetric; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23076897
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003401.pub3 -
Paediatric Anaesthesia Nov 2015Quantification of acute severe complications of pediatric anesthesia is essential to plan clinical guidelines and educational curricula. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Quantification of acute severe complications of pediatric anesthesia is essential to plan clinical guidelines and educational curricula.
AIM
Our aim was to identify complications in terms of frequency and outcomes.
METHODS
We defined acute severe complications as an unexpected perioperative event, which without intervention by the anesthesiologist within 30 min may lead to disability or death. A systematic search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Screening and data extraction were performed independently. Assessment of bias was conducted using GRADE guidelines.
RESULTS
Of 3002 abstracts, 25 met all inclusion criteria. The most common acute severe complications in pediatric anesthesia are related to airway management and respiratory system, followed by cardiovascular events. There was a great variation in reporting the methods, particularly poor definitions of diagnostic criteria for complications. Data were heterogeneous and pooled estimates may not be generalizable. Some studies failed to define potential source of bias, explain how missing data were addressed, describe acute severe complications, and had incomplete postoperative follow-up.
CONCLUSION
The data on pediatric anesthesia acute severe complications are poorly defined with large variation in the specificity of diagnostic reporting even within studies. We suggest that it is vital for future studies in this area to be based on a standardized system of diagnostic reporting (possibly with a hierarchical system of coding) with adequate description of population details to describe heterogeneity of data.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anesthesia; Child; Humans; Pediatrics; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Period; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 26392306
DOI: 10.1111/pan.12751 -
Medicine Jan 2023Combined acupuncture-medicine anesthesia (CAMA) is extensively used in thyroid surgery in China. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Combined acupuncture-medicine anesthesia (CAMA) is extensively used in thyroid surgery in China. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of CAMA.
METHODS
We searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP database, WanFang database, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for relevant literature. The term of literature was published before April 18, 2020, and there were no restrictions on publication language, region, or publication year. The inclusion criteria included a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of acupuncture combined with cervical plexus anesthesia. We used RevMan5.3 software for data analysis. If the chi-square test showed no significant heterogeneity (P > .10, I2 < 50%), we used the fixed-effect model to calculate risk ratio (RR) and mean difference. Otherwise, the random-effects model was used.
RESULTS
Overall, 18 RCTs involving 1211 patients were included in the study. The anesthesia significant rate (ASR) in the transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) plus cervical plexus block anesthesia (CPBA) and electroacupuncture (EA) plus CPBA groups was significantly higher compared with the CPBA group (TEAS + CPBA: P < .001; EA + CPBA: P < .001). The pooled effect values of the intraoperative heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were significantly lower in both the TEAS + CPBA and EA + CPBA groups relative to the control group (HR: P = .05, P < .001; the MAP: P = .002, P < .001; respectively). Moreover, the postoperative adverse reaction was markedly lower in the experimental group than in the control group (RR = 0.30, P < .001), and there was no heterogeneity between the two groups (P = .71, I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSION
Combined acupuncture-medicine anesthesia significantly increases the anesthesia significance rate, reduces the intraoperative heart rate, and blood pressure, and reduces the incidence of postoperative adverse reactions. However, more high-quality future studies should be conducted to validate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture combined anesthesia further.
Topics: Humans; Thyroid Gland; Electroacupuncture; Acupuncture Therapy; Acupuncture Analgesia; Anesthesia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36607887
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032582 -
Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular... Jan 2020The choice of anesthetic technique in carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been controversial. This study compared the outcomes of general anesthesia (GA) and local... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The choice of anesthetic technique in carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been controversial. This study compared the outcomes of general anesthesia (GA) and local anesthesia (LA) in CEA.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.
SETTING
Hospitals.
PARTICIPANTS
Adult patients undergoing CEA with either LA or GA.
INTERVENTIONS
The effects of GA and LA on CEA outcomes were compared.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
PubMed, OVID, Scopus, and Embase were searched to June 2018. Thirty-one studies with 152,376 patients were analyzed. A random effect model was used, and heterogeneity was assessed with the I and chi-square tests. LA was associated with shorter surgical time (weighted mean difference -9.15 min [-15.55 to -2.75]; p = 0.005) and less stroke (odds ratio [OR] 0.76 [0.62-0.92]; p = 0.006), cardiac complications (OR 0.59 [0.47-0.73]; p < 0.00001), and in-hospital mortality (OR 0.72 [0.59-0.90]; p = 0.003). Transient neurologic deficit rates were similar (OR 0.69 [0.46-1.04]; p = 0.07). Heterogeneity was significant for surgical time (I = 0.99, chi-square = 1,336.04; p < 0.00001), transient neurologic deficit (I = 0.41, chi-square = 28.81; p = 0.04), and cardiac complications (I = 0.42, chi-square = 43.32; p = 0.01) but not for stroke (I = 0.22, chi-square = 30.72; p = 0.16) and mortality (I = 0.00, chi-square = 21.69; p = 0.65). Randomized controlled trial subgroup analysis was performed, and all the aforementioned variables were not significantly different or heterogenous.
CONCLUSION
The results from this study showed no inferiority of using LA to GA in patients undergoing CEA. Future investigations should be reported more systematically, preferably with randomization or propensity-matched analysis, and thus registries will facilitate investigation of this subject. Anesthetic choice in CEA should be individualized and encouraged where applicable.
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, General; Anesthesia, Local; Carotid Stenosis; Endarterectomy, Carotid; Humans; Risk Factors; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31072705
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2019.03.029 -
Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine 2016This systematic review examines the evidence for preprocedural neuraxial ultrasound as an adjunct to lumbar spinal and epidural anesthesia in adults. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review examines the evidence for preprocedural neuraxial ultrasound as an adjunct to lumbar spinal and epidural anesthesia in adults.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to June 30, 2014, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that reported data answering one or more of the following 3 questions: (1) Does ultrasound accurately identify a given lumbar intervertebral space? (2) Does ultrasound accurately predict the needle insertion depth required to reach the epidural or intrathecal space? (3) Does ultrasound improve the efficacy and safety of spinal or lumbar epidural anesthesia?
RESULTS
Thirty-one clinical trials and 1 meta-analysis were included in this review. Data from 8 studies indicate that neuraxial ultrasound can identify a given lumbar intervertebral space more accurately than by landmark palpation alone. Thirteen studies reported an excellent correlation between ultrasound-measured depth and needle insertion depth to the epidural or intrathecal space. The mean difference between the 2 measurements was within 3 mm in most studies. Thirteen RCTs, 5 cohort studies, and 1 meta-analysis reported data on efficacy and safety outcomes. Results consistently showed that ultrasound resulted in increased success and ease of performance. Ultrasound seemed to reduce the risk of traumatic procedures but there was otherwise insufficient evidence to conclude if it significantly improves safety.
CONCLUSIONS
There is significant evidence supporting the role of neuraxial ultrasound in improving the precision and efficacy of neuraxial anesthetic techniques.
WHAT'S NEW
We know that neuraxial ultrasound is a useful complement to clinical examination when performing lumbar central neuraxial blocks. It provides anatomical information including the depth of the epidural space, the identity of a given intervertebral level, and the location of the midline and interspinous/interlaminar spaces. This information can be used to successfully guide subsequent needle insertion.Since 2010, new data from RCTs and 1 meta-analysis suggest that neuraxial ultrasound increases the success and reduces the technical difficulty of lumbar central neuraxial blocks. Findings from the meta-analysis suggest that neuraxial ultrasound reduces the risk of traumatic procedures, and thus may possibly contribute to the safety of lumbar central neuraxial blocks.
Topics: Anesthesia, Epidural; Anesthesia, Spinal; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 25493689
DOI: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000184 -
BMJ Open Nov 2023The optimal puncture technique for neuraxial anaesthesia in different populations is unclear. We sought to obtain data from randomised controlled trials comparing the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The optimal puncture technique for neuraxial anaesthesia in different populations is unclear. We sought to obtain data from randomised controlled trials comparing the impact of ultrasound-guided technology and traditional positioning technology on the success rate of neuraxial anaesthesia.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis using study populations, interventions, intervention comparisons, outcome measures and study types.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of science were searched until 31 September 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing three types of neuraxial anaesthesia: ultrasound-assisted, ultrasound real-time guidance and conventional positioning to describe which neuraxial anaesthesia modality is best for patients and to recommend the appropriate one for different populations.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Five independent reviewers retrieved, screened and edited included studies using standardised methods. Assess risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration and Evidence Project tools. Network meta-analysis was performed using STATA V.15 statistical software.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies containing three different interventions were included. The SUCRA values of first-pass success rates for the three neuraxial anaesthesia methods were real-time guidance (82.8%), ultrasound-assisted (67.1%) and traditional positioning (0.1%). Both ultrasound techniques improved first-pass success rates compared with traditional localization, but there was no significant difference between the two. Subgroup analysis showed that the use of real-time ultrasound guidance for neuraxial anaesthesia in pregnant and patients with obesity improved first-pass success rates. Ultrasound-assisted technology can improve first-attempt success rates in older patients with abnormal lumbar spine anatomy.
CONCLUSION
Compared with conventional positioning, ultrasound guidance technology can improve the first-pass success rate of neuraxial anaesthesia, but there is no significant difference between ultrasound-assisted and real-time guidance technology. The results of subgroup analysis tell us that the most suitable neuraxial anaesthesia method is different for different groups of people.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO number: CRD42022376041.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Spinal Puncture; Anesthesia, Epidural; Lumbar Vertebrae; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 37918920
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071253