European surgical research. Europaische chirurgische Forschung. Recherches chirurgicales europeennes · 2014
Ropivacaine for continuous wound infusion for postoperative pain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Raines Shane, Hedlund Cecilia, Franzon Malin, Lillieborg Stefan, Kelleher Glen, Ahlén Kjell
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The use of continuous wound infusion (CWI) of local anaesthetics has been suggested as a safe and effective alternative technique to epidural anaesthesia/analgesia that allows surgeons to provide postoperative pain relief while reducing opioid consumption and associated adverse events. A previous meta-analysis by Liu et al. [Am Coll Surg 2006;203:914-932] reported results mainly from studies of bupivacaine. Subsequently, several new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ropivacaine have been published. This systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of ropivacaine for CWI.
METHODS: Systematic literature searches (EMBASE, MEDLINE) were performed to retrieve studies which met the following criteria: double-blind RCT of ropivacaine versus either placebo or an active comparator; use of ropivacaine solution without added active agents, and prohibition of other routine analgesics during the study period except rescue patient-controlled analgesia. For each included study, standardized effect sizes for ropivacaine versus placebo were calculated for opioid rescue use, pain score at rest, and pain score at mobilization. Meta-analyses were conducted for each endpoint.
RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs comparing ropivacaine (n = 376) versus placebo (n = 380) were identified. Effect size estimates revealed significantly less opioid rescue use for ropivacaine patients (-1.3; 95% CI -1.5 to -1.1) and significantly less pain for ropivacaine patients both at rest (-1.1; 95% CI -1.3 to -0.9) and on mobilization (-1.5; 95% CI -1.7 to -1.3). The weighted mean reduction in opioid rescue use was 22.4 mg.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis presents substantial evidence that ropivacaine provides clinically meaningful reductions in opioid use and pain outcomes. Ropivacaine CWI is effective for postoperative pain management in a wide range of surgical procedures.
METHODS: Systematic literature searches (EMBASE, MEDLINE) were performed to retrieve studies which met the following criteria: double-blind RCT of ropivacaine versus either placebo or an active comparator; use of ropivacaine solution without added active agents, and prohibition of other routine analgesics during the study period except rescue patient-controlled analgesia. For each included study, standardized effect sizes for ropivacaine versus placebo were calculated for opioid rescue use, pain score at rest, and pain score at mobilization. Meta-analyses were conducted for each endpoint.
RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs comparing ropivacaine (n = 376) versus placebo (n = 380) were identified. Effect size estimates revealed significantly less opioid rescue use for ropivacaine patients (-1.3; 95% CI -1.5 to -1.1) and significantly less pain for ropivacaine patients both at rest (-1.1; 95% CI -1.3 to -0.9) and on mobilization (-1.5; 95% CI -1.7 to -1.3). The weighted mean reduction in opioid rescue use was 22.4 mg.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis presents substantial evidence that ropivacaine provides clinically meaningful reductions in opioid use and pain outcomes. Ropivacaine CWI is effective for postoperative pain management in a wide range of surgical procedures.