-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2018Epidural analgesia in labour prolongs the second stage and increases instrumental delivery. It has been suggested that a more upright maternal position during all or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Epidural analgesia in labour prolongs the second stage and increases instrumental delivery. It has been suggested that a more upright maternal position during all or part of the second stage may counteract these adverse effects. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different birthing positions (upright or recumbent) during the second stage of labour, on maternal and fetal outcomes for women with epidural analgesia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 June 2018), and the reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised or quasi-randomised trials including pregnant women (primigravidae or multigravidae) in the second stage of induced or spontaneous labour receiving epidural analgesia of any kind. Cluster-randomised controlled trials would have been eligible for inclusion but we found none. Studies published in abstract form only were also eligible.We assumed the experimental intervention to be maternal use of any upright position during the second stage of labour, compared with the control condition of remaining in any recumbent position.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors to obtain missing data. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.We carried out a planned sensitivity analysis of the three studies with low risks of bias for allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data reporting, and further excluded one study with a co-intervention (this was not prespecified).
MAIN RESULTS
We include eight randomised controlled trials, involving 4464 women, comparing upright positions versus recumbent positions in this update. Five were conducted in the UK, one in France and two in Spain.The largest UK trial accounted for three-quarters of all review participants, and we judged it to have low risk of bias. We assessed two other trials as being at low risk of selection and attrition bias. We rated four studies at unclear or high risk of bias for both selection and attrition bias and one study as high risk of bias due to a co-intervention. The trials varied in their comparators, with five studies comparing different positions (upright and recumbent), two comparing ambulation with (recumbent) non-ambulation, and one study comparing postural changes guided by a physiotherapist to a recumbent position.Overall, there may be little or no difference between upright and recumbent positions for our combined primary outcome of operative birth (caesarean or instrumental vaginal): average risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.07; 8 trials, 4316 women; I = 78%; low-quality evidence. It is uncertain whether the upright position has any impact on caesarean section (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.46; 8 trials, 4316 women; I = 47%; very low-quality evidence), instrumental vaginal birth (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 8 trials, 4316 women; I = 69%) and the duration of the second stage of labour (mean difference (MD) 6.00 minutes, 95% CI -37.46 to 49.46; 3 trials, 456 women; I = 96%), because we rated the quality of the evidence as very low for these outcomes. Maternal position in the second stage of labour probably makes little or no difference to postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), (PPH requiring blood transfusion): RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.72; 1 trial, 3093 women; moderate-quality evidence. Maternal satisfaction with the overall childbirth experience was slightly lower in the upright group: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.99; 1 trial, 2373 women. Fewer babies were born with low cord pH in the upright group: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.90; 2 trials, 3159 infants; moderate-quality evidence.The results were less clear for other maternal or fetal outcomes, including trauma to the birth canal requiring suturing (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.13; 3 trials, 3266 women; I = 46%; low-quality evidence), abnormal fetal heart patterns requiring intervention (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.84; 1 trial, 107 women; very low-quality evidence), or admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.02 to 12.73; 1 trial, 66 infants; very low-quality evidence). However, the CIs around some of these estimates were wide, and we cannot rule out clinically important effects.In our sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias, upright positions increase the chance of women having an operative birth: RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.20; 3 trials, 3609 women; high-quality evidence. In absolute terms, this equates to 63 more operative births per 1000 women (from 17 more to 115 more). This increase appears to be due to the increase in caesarean section in the upright group (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.57; 3 trials, 3609 women; high-quality evidence), which equates to 25 more caesarean sections per 1000 women (from 4 more to 49 more). In the sensitivity analysis there was no clear impact on instrumental vaginal births: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 3 trials, 3609 women; low-quality evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There may be little or no difference in operative birth between women who adopt recumbent or supine positions during the second stage of labour with an epidural analgesia. However, the studies are heterogeneous, probably related to differing study designs and interventions, differing adherence to the allocated intervention and possible selection and attrition bias. Sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias indicated that recumbent positions may reduce the need for operative birth and caesarean section, without increasing instrumental delivery. Mothers may be more satisfied with their experience of childbirth by adopting a recumbent position. The studies in this review looked at left or right lateral and semi-recumbent positions. Recumbent positions such as flat on the back or lithotomy are not generally used due to the possibility of aorto-caval compression, although we acknowledge that these recumbent positions were not the focus of trials included in this review.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Extraction, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Labor Stage, Second; Parturition; Patient Positioning; Posture; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 30411804
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008070.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) with opioids and epidural analgesia (EA) using either continuous epidural administration (CEA) or patient-controlled... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) with opioids and epidural analgesia (EA) using either continuous epidural administration (CEA) or patient-controlled (PCEA) techniques are popular approaches for analgesia following intra-abdominal surgery. Despite several attempts to compare the risks and benefits, the optimal form of analgesia for these procedures remains the subject of debate.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to update and expand a previously published Cochrane Review on IVPCA versus CEA for pain after intra-abdominal surgery with the addition of the comparator PCEA. We have compared both forms of EA to IVPCA. Where appropriate we have performed subgroup analysis for CEA versus PCEA.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases for relevant studies: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017; Issue 8), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1966 to September 2017), and Embase (OvidSP) (1988 to September 2017) using a combination of MeSH and text words. We searched the following trial registries: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the EU Clinical Trials Register in September 2017, together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.We included only randomized controlled trials and used no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all parallel and cross-over randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CEA or PCEA (or both) with IVPCA for postoperative pain relief in adults following intra-abdominal surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (JS and EY) independently identified studies for eligibility and performed data extraction using a data extraction form. In cases of disagreement (three occasions) a third review author (MB) was consulted. We appraised each included study to assess the risk of bias as outlined in Section 8.5 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 studies (1716 participants) in our review. There are 10 studies awaiting classification and one ongoing study. A total of 869 participants (51%) received EA and 847 (49%) received IVPCA. The EA trials included 16 trials with CEA (418 participants) and 16 trials with PCEA (451 participants). The studies included a broad range of surgical procedures (including hysterectomies, radical prostatectomies, Caesarean sections, colorectal and upper gastrointestinal procedures), a wide range of adult ages, and were performed in several different countries.Our pooled analyses suggested a benefit with regard to pain scores (using a visual analogue scale between 0 and 100) in favour of EA techniques at rest. The mean pain reduction at rest from waking to six hours after operation was 5.7 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 9.5; 7 trials, 384 participants; moderate-quality evidence). From seven to 24 hours, the mean pain reduction was 9.0 points (95% CI 4.6 to 13.4; 11 trials, 558 participants; moderate-quality evidence). From 24 hours the mean pain reduction was 5.1 points (95% CI 0.9 to 9.4; 7 trials, 393 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Due to high statistical heterogeneity, no pooled analysis was possible for the estimation of pain on movement at any time. Two single studies (one using CEA and one PCEA) reported lower pain scores with EA compared to IVPCA at 0 to 6 hours and 7 to 24 hours. At > 24 hours the results from 2 studies (both CEA) were conflicting.We found no difference in mortality between EA and IVPCA, although the only deaths reported were in the EA group (5/287, 1.7%). The risk ratio (RR) of death with EA compared to using IVPCA was 3.37 (95% CI 0.72 to 15.88; 9 trials, 560 participants; low-quality evidence).A single study suggested that the use of EA may result in fewer episodes of respiratory depression, with an RR of 0.47 (95% CI 0.04 to 5.69; 1 trial; low-quality evidence). The successful placement of an epidural catheter can be technically challenging. The improvements in pain scores above were accompanied by an increase in the risk of failure of the analgesic technique with EA (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.45; 10 trials, 678 participants; moderate-quality evidence); the occurrence of pruritus (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.35; 8 trials, 492 participants; moderate-quality evidence); and episodes of hypotension requiring intervention (RR 7.13, 95% CI 2.87 to 17.75; 6 trials, 479 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of an advantage of one technique over another for other adverse effects considered in this review (Venous thromboembolism with EA (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.95; 2 trials, 101 participants; low-quality evidence); nausea and vomiting (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27; 10 trials, 645 participants; moderate-quality evidence); sedation requiring intervention (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.87; 4 trials, 223 participants; moderate-quality evidence); or episodes of desaturation to less than 90% (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.37; 5 trials, 328 participants; moderate-quality evidence)).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The additional pain reduction at rest associated with the use of EA rather than IVPCA is modest and unlikely to be clinically important. Single-trial estimates provide low-quality evidence that there may be an additional reduction in pain on movement, which is clinically important. Any improvement needs to be interpreted with the understanding that the use of EA is also associated with an increased chance of failure to successfully institute analgesia, and an increased likelihood of episodes of hypotension requiring intervention and pruritus. We have rated the evidence as of moderate quality given study limitations in most of the contributing studies. Further large RCTs are required to determine the ideal analgesic technique. The 10 studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.
Topics: Adult; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30161292
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010434.pub2 -
Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing :... Dec 2022Nonopioid analgesics are commonly used to augment or replace opioids in the perioperative setting. Perianesthesia nurses must consider timing and appropriateness when... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Nonopioid analgesics are commonly used to augment or replace opioids in the perioperative setting. Perianesthesia nurses must consider timing and appropriateness when administering these medications to patients in the preoperative area or the postanesthesia care unit, particularly when other medications with sedative effects are being given. Gabapentin, originally proposed as an anticonvulsant medication, promotes analgesia and reduces risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting. This review examines the effect of gabapentin on postoperative pain.
DESIGN
A systematic review.
METHODS
CINAHL, PubMed, and Cochrane Review databases were searched to find a total of 93 sources that examined gabapentin and postoperative pain. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, four randomized controlled trials (RCT) were reviewed. Postoperative pain within the 24 hours of surgery was measured as the primary outcome using the visual analog scale in all sources FINDINGS: Three of the four reviewed RCTs determined gabapentin was both statistically and clinically significant in reducing postoperative pain, and all four sources showed a reduction in opioid consumption during the immediate postoperative period, which promoted patient satisfaction.
CONCLUSIONS
Further study of gabapentin and postoperative pain is needed employing rigorous and robust methodology and diversity of the sample selections.
Topics: Humans; Gabapentin; Analgesics, Opioid; Analgesics; Pain, Postoperative; Anesthesia
PubMed: 36100525
DOI: 10.1016/j.jopan.2022.04.008 -
Anaesthesia Apr 2021Phrenic-sparing analgesic techniques for shoulder surgery are desirable. Intra-articular infiltration analgesia is one promising phrenic-sparing modality, but its role... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Phrenic-sparing analgesic techniques for shoulder surgery are desirable. Intra-articular infiltration analgesia is one promising phrenic-sparing modality, but its role remains unclear because of conflicting evidence of analgesic efficacy and theoretical concerns regarding chondrotoxicity. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the benefits and risks of intra-articular infiltration in arthroscopic shoulder surgery compared with systemic analgesia or interscalene brachial plexus block. We sought randomised controlled trials comparing intra-articular infiltration with interscalene brachial plexus block or systemic analgesia (control). Cumulative 24-h postoperative oral morphine equivalent consumption was designated as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included visual analogue scale pain scores during the first 24 h postoperatively; time-to-first analgesic request; patient satisfaction; opioid-related side-effects; block-related adverse events; and any indicators of chondrotoxicity. Fifteen trials (863 patients) were included. Compared with control, intra-articular infiltration reduced 24-h postoperative analgesic consumption by a weighted mean difference (95%CI) of -30.9 ([-38.9 to -22.9]; p < 0.001). Intra-articular infiltration also reduced the weighted mean difference (95%CI) pain scores up to 12 h postoperatively, with the greatest reduction at 4 h (-2.2 cm [(-4.4 to -0.04]); p < 0.05). Compared with interscalene brachial plexus block, there was no difference in opioid consumption, but patients receiving interscalene brachial plexus block had better pain scores at 2, 4 and 24 h postoperatively. There was no difference in opioid- or block-related adverse events, and none of the trials reported chondrotoxic effects. Compared with systemic analgesia, intra-articular infiltration provides superior pain control, reduces opioid consumption and enhances patient satisfaction, but it may be inferior to interscalene brachial plexus block patients having arthroscopic shoulder surgery.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Arthroscopy; Brachial Plexus Block; Humans; Injections, Intra-Articular; Morphine; Pain, Postoperative; Shoulder
PubMed: 32596840
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15172 -
Journal of Opioid Management 2010Although the addition of a background infusion for intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) has been identified as a risk factor for the development of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although the addition of a background infusion for intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) has been identified as a risk factor for the development of respiratory depression, this has not clearly been examined in a systematic fashion. The authors undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine whether the addition of a background or continuous infusion to an IV-PCA regimen would be associated with an increased risk of respiratory depression.
METHODS
Studies were identified by searching the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database (1966 to November 30, 2008). Inclusion criteria were a clearly defined analgesic technique of demand-only IV-PCA versus IV-PCA utilizing both a demand dose and background infusion, opioid medication used, and randomized trials. Data were abstracted and analyzed with the RevMan 4.2.7 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2004).
RESULTS
The search yielded 687 abstracts from which the original articles were obtained and data abstracted with a total of 14 articles analyzed. There were 402 subjects in the continuous IV-PCA with demand group versus the 394 subjects in the demand-only IV-PCA group. Addition of a background infusion to the demand dose for IV-PCA with opioids was associated with a significant increased risk for respiratory depression (odds ratio [OR] = 4.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20-18.21). Subgroup analysis revealed that this increased risk was seen in adult but not in pediatric patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis indicates that the addition of a continuous or background infusion to the demand dose for IV-PCA is associated with a higher incidence of respiratory events than demand IV-PCA alone in adult but not in pediatric patients; however, our overall results should be interpreted with caution due to the relatively small sample size and the wide range of definitions for respiratory depression in studies examined.
Topics: Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Pain; Pain Measurement; Respiratory Insufficiency; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 20297614
DOI: 10.5055/jom.2010.0004 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Oct 2011Remifentanil is an ultrashort-acting opioid with favorable pharmacokinetic properties that make it suitable as a labor analgesic. Although it crosses the placenta... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Remifentanil is an ultrashort-acting opioid with favorable pharmacokinetic properties that make it suitable as a labor analgesic. Although it crosses the placenta freely, it is eliminated quickly in the neonate by rapid metabolism and redistribution. We aimed to determine whether remifentanil compared with meperidine is effective in reducing pain scores in laboring parturients. Other effects on the mother, the labor process, and the neonate were also examined.
METHODS
MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Maternity and Infant Care databases were searched without language restriction using multiple keywords for labor analgesia, remifentanil, and meperidine. Published abstracts from 5 key research meetings and references from retrieved articles were examined for additional studies. Randomized controlled trials in laboring parturients comparing remifentanil with meperidine were selected. Risk of bias was assessed using criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We assessed for adequacy of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and completeness of follow-up. Data were extracted from each study using a standardized data collection form. The primary outcome was reduction in pain scores (visual analog scale [VAS], 0-100 mm). We also evaluated maternal side effects (sedation, oxygen desaturation, and bradypnea) and effects on the neonate (Apgar scores, umbilical cord pH, and Neurologic and Adaptive Capacity Scores).
RESULTS
Seven studies (349 patients) were identified for inclusion; only 3 studies were suitable for quantitative synthesis in a meta-analysis (233 patients). We found that remifentanil reduces the mean VAS score at 1 hour by 25 mm more than meperidine (P < 0.001) (95% confidence interval = 19-31 mm). Limited conclusions can be made regarding the side-effect profile of remifentanil because of insufficient data.
CONCLUSION
Compared with meperidine, remifentanil is superior in reducing mean VAS scores for labor pain after 1 hour.
Topics: Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesics, Opioid; Female; Humans; Labor Pain; Meperidine; Odds Ratio; Pain Measurement; Patient Selection; Piperidines; Pregnancy; Remifentanil; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21890889
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182289fe9 -
Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine 2009Ultrasound guidance has become popular for performance of regional anesthesia and analgesia. This systematic review summarizes existing evidence for superior risk to... (Review)
Review
Ultrasound guidance has become popular for performance of regional anesthesia and analgesia. This systematic review summarizes existing evidence for superior risk to benefit profiles for ultrasound versus other techniques. Medline was systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ultrasound to another technique, and for large (n > 100) prospective case series describing experience with ultrasound-guided blocks. Fourteen RCTs and 2 case series were identified for peripheral nerve blocks. No RCTs or case series were identified for perineural catheters. Six RCTs and 1 case series were identified for epidural anesthesia. Overall, the RCTs and case series reported that use of ultrasound significantly reduced time or number of attempts to perform blocks and in some cases significantly improved the quality of sensory block. The included studies reported high incidence of efficacy of blocks with ultrasound (95%-100%) that was not significantly different than most other techniques. No serious complications were reported in included studies. Current evidence does not suggest that use of ultrasound improves success of regional anesthesia versus most other techniques. However, ultrasound was not inferior for efficacy, did not increase risk, and offers other potential patient-oriented benefits. All RCTs are rather small, thus completion of large RCTs and case series are encouraged to confirm findings.
Topics: Analgesia; Anesthesia, Conduction; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Nerve Block; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Trauma, Nervous System; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 19258988
DOI: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181933ec3 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Feb 2011Sickle cell disease causes chronic haemolytic anaemia, dactylitis, and painful acute crises. It also increases the risk of stroke, organ damage, bacterial infections,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Sickle cell disease causes chronic haemolytic anaemia, dactylitis, and painful acute crises. It also increases the risk of stroke, organ damage, bacterial infections, and complications of blood transfusion. In sub-Saharan Africa, up to a third of adults are carriers of the defective sickle cell gene, and 1% to 2% of babies are born with the disease.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: what are the effects of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent sickle cell crisis and other acute complications in people with sickle cell disease? What are the effects of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions to treat pain in people with sickle cell crisis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to March 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 38 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, antibiotic prophylaxis in children <5 years of age, antibiotic prophylaxis in children >5 years of age, aspirin, avoidance of cold environment, blood transfusion, codeine, corticosteroid (with narcotic analgesics), diflunisal, hydration, hydroxyurea, ibuprofen, ketorolac, limiting physical exercise, malaria chemoprophylaxis, morphine (controlled-release oral after initial intravenous bolus, repeated intravenous doses), oxygen, paracetamol, patient-controlled analgesia, pneumococcal vaccines, and rehydration.
Topics: Acute Disease; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Anemia, Sickle Cell; Blood Transfusion; Humans; Hydroxyurea; Pneumococcal Vaccines
PubMed: 21718552
DOI: No ID Found -
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Jul 2015Traumatic rib fractures are a common condition associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Observational studies have suggested improved outcome in patients... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Traumatic rib fractures are a common condition associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Observational studies have suggested improved outcome in patients receiving continuous epidural analgesia (CEA). The aim of the present systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was to assess the benefit and harm of CEA compared with other analgesic interventions in patients with traumatic rib fractures.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). Eligible trials were RCTs comparing CEA with other analgesic interventions in patients with traumatic rib fractures. Cumulative relative risks (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated, and risk of systematic and random errors was assessed. The predefined primary outcome measures were mortality, pneumonia and duration of mechanical ventilation.
RESULTS
A total of six trials (n = 223) were included; all were judged as having a high risk of bias. In the conventional meta-analyses, there was no statistically significant difference in mortality (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.21-22.42; P = 0.51; I(2) = 0%), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -7.53, 95% CI -16.32 to 1.26; P = 0.09; I(2) = 91%) or pneumonia (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.19-1.25; P = 0.13; I(2) = 0%) between CEA and other analgesic interventions. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses, including TSA confirmed the results.
CONCLUSION
The quality and quantity of evidence for the use of CEA in patients with traumatic rib fractures is low, and there is no firm evidence for benefit or harm of CEA compared with other analgesic interventions. Well-powered RCTs with low risk of bias reporting clinically relevant patient-centred outcome measures are needed.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Humans; Pain; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Rib Fractures
PubMed: 25683770
DOI: 10.1111/aas.12475 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Aug 2015Paravertebral block (PVB) is a safe and effective anesthetic technique for thoracotomy and mastectomy. However, no systematic review or meta-analysis has focused on PVB... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Paravertebral block (PVB) is a safe and effective anesthetic technique for thoracotomy and mastectomy. However, no systematic review or meta-analysis has focused on PVB for inguinal herniorrhaphy. Our study compares PVB with general anesthesia/systemic analgesia, neuraxial blocks, and other peripheral nerve blocks.
METHODS
We analyzed 14 randomized controlled trials from PubMed, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and CINAHL up to February 2015, without language restriction, comparing PVB under sedation with general anesthesia/systematic analgesia (135 vs 133 patients), neuraxial blocks (191 vs 186 patients), and other peripheral nerve blocks (119 vs 117 patients). We investigated pain scores, consumption of postoperative analgesia, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), length of hospital stay, postanesthesia care unit bypassing rate, time to perform blocks, intraoperative hemodynamics, and incidence of urinary retention. Joint hypothesis testing was adopted for pain and analgesics, PONV, and hemodynamic variables. All analyses were performed with RevMan 5.2.11 (Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen). Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method was used for post hoc testing.
RESULTS
PVB reduced PONV (nausea: risk ratio [RR] = 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05-0.93; numbers needed to treat [NNT] = 4.5; I = 15% and vomiting: RR = 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.76; NNT = 8.3; I = 0%) compared with general anesthesia/systematic analgesia (quality of evidence [QoE]: high). Compared with neuraxial blocks, PVB resulted in less postoperative nausea (RR = 0.34 [95% CI, 0.13-0.91], NNT = 8.3, I = 0%) and urinary retention (RR = 0.14 [95% CI, 0.05-0.42], NNT = 7.4, I = 0%) than neuraxial blocks (QoE: high). More time was needed to perform PVB than neuraxial blocks (standardized mean difference = 1.90 [95% CI, 0.02-3.77], I = 92%; mean difference = 5.33 minutes; QoE: moderate). However, the available data could not reject the null hypothesis of noninferiority on all pain scores and analgesic requirements for both PVB versus general anesthesia/systematic analgesia and PVB versus neuraxial blocks (QoE: low), as well as on hemodynamic outcomes for PVB versus neuraxial blocks (QoE: moderate). Our systematic review showed that PVB decreased postoperative pain scores and analgesic requirement as compared with ilioinguinal block and transversus abdominis plane block.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis shows that PVB provides an anesthesia with fewer undesirable effects for inguinal herniorrhaphy. The choice between general anesthesia/systematic analgesia, neuraxial blocks, PVB, and other peripheral nerve blocks should be based on time available to perform the block and a complete coverage over the relevant structures by the blocks.
Topics: Analgesics; Chi-Square Distribution; Hernia, Inguinal; Herniorrhaphy; Humans; Length of Stay; Nerve Block; Odds Ratio; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Patient Selection; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26086619
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000835