Journal of perianesthesia nursing : official journal of the American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses · 2024
Modified Thoracoabdominal Nerves Block Through Perichondral Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Park Insun, Park Jae Hyon, Koo Chang-Hoon, Kim Jin-Hee, Koo Bon-Wook, Ryu Jung-Hee, Oh Ah-Young
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the postoperative analgesic efficacy and safety of the modified thoracoabdominal nerve block through the perichondral approach (M-TAPA) in abdominal surgeries.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: We searched electronic databases to identify relevant studies comparing M-TAPA with conventional analgesic techniques. The primary outcome was the requirement for rescue analgesia at 12 and 24 hours postsurgery. Secondary outcomes included the 11-point numerical rating scale pain scores at 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours following surgery, global quality of recovery scores, and postoperative adverse events.
FINDINGS: Five randomized controlled trials involving 308 patients were analyzed. M-TAPA showed no significant difference in the requirement for rescue analgesia at 12 hours (relative risk [RR]: 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62, 1.22; P = .424; I2 = 40.7%; Ph = .185) and 24 hours (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.22, 1.99; P = .252; I2 = 90.3%; Ph < .001) postsurgery compared to non-M-TAPA. No significant differences in numerical rating scale pain scores or global quality of recovery scores were found between the two groups (all P < .05). However, M-TAPA was associated with a lower occurrence of nausea (RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.22, 0.68; P < .001; I2 = 0%; Ph = .834), vomiting (RR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.62; P < .001; I2 = 0%; Ph = .884), and itching (RR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.70; P = .002; I2 = 0%; Ph = .826).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in analgesic efficacy and safety between M-TAPA and non-M-TAPA techniques.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: We searched electronic databases to identify relevant studies comparing M-TAPA with conventional analgesic techniques. The primary outcome was the requirement for rescue analgesia at 12 and 24 hours postsurgery. Secondary outcomes included the 11-point numerical rating scale pain scores at 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours following surgery, global quality of recovery scores, and postoperative adverse events.
FINDINGS: Five randomized controlled trials involving 308 patients were analyzed. M-TAPA showed no significant difference in the requirement for rescue analgesia at 12 hours (relative risk [RR]: 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62, 1.22; P = .424; I2 = 40.7%; Ph = .185) and 24 hours (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.22, 1.99; P = .252; I2 = 90.3%; Ph < .001) postsurgery compared to non-M-TAPA. No significant differences in numerical rating scale pain scores or global quality of recovery scores were found between the two groups (all P < .05). However, M-TAPA was associated with a lower occurrence of nausea (RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.22, 0.68; P < .001; I2 = 0%; Ph = .834), vomiting (RR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.62; P < .001; I2 = 0%; Ph = .884), and itching (RR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.70; P = .002; I2 = 0%; Ph = .826).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in analgesic efficacy and safety between M-TAPA and non-M-TAPA techniques.