Rectus Sheath Block in Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.
abdominal surgery
opioid consumption
postoperative pain intensity
rectus sheath block
time to first opioid
Journal
Romanian journal of anaesthesia and intensive care
ISSN: 2392-7518
Titre abrégé: Rom J Anaesth Intensive Care
Pays: Romania
ID NLM: 101681752
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2023
Apr 2023
Historique:
medline:
28
8
2023
pubmed:
28
8
2023
entrez:
28
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
With the development of ultrasound-guided and laparoscopic techniques of rectus sheath block (RSB), regional analgesia promises to be efficient and safe. However, studies show controversial results. Our systematic review with meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effect of rectus sheath block in abdominal surgery. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 2021 for randomised controlled trials written in English. We included studies on adult populations undergoing abdominal surgery. The primary outcomes of our meta-analysis were postoperative pain intensity and postoperative opioid consumption. Data analysis was conducted using the Review Manager software (RevMan, v. 5.4). Statistical heterogeneity was estimated by the I Eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in English with a total of 386 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Patients in the RSB group did not consume fewer anaesthetics and opioids after abdominal surgery when compared with patients in the control group. In addition, postoperative pain intensity (out of 10) was not lower in the RSB group when compared with the control group. Finally, RSB did not improve the time to the first opioid/analgesic (min) compared with the non-RSB option. There is no statistically significant evidence in favour of RSB over non-RSB in reducing anaesthetics and opioid consumption, postoperative pain intensity, and increasing time to first opioid/analgesic.
Sections du résumé
Background and aims
UNASSIGNED
With the development of ultrasound-guided and laparoscopic techniques of rectus sheath block (RSB), regional analgesia promises to be efficient and safe. However, studies show controversial results. Our systematic review with meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effect of rectus sheath block in abdominal surgery.
Method
UNASSIGNED
We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 2021 for randomised controlled trials written in English. We included studies on adult populations undergoing abdominal surgery. The primary outcomes of our meta-analysis were postoperative pain intensity and postoperative opioid consumption. Data analysis was conducted using the Review Manager software (RevMan, v. 5.4). Statistical heterogeneity was estimated by the I
Results
UNASSIGNED
Eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in English with a total of 386 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Patients in the RSB group did not consume fewer anaesthetics and opioids after abdominal surgery when compared with patients in the control group. In addition, postoperative pain intensity (out of 10) was not lower in the RSB group when compared with the control group. Finally, RSB did not improve the time to the first opioid/analgesic (min) compared with the non-RSB option.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
There is no statistically significant evidence in favour of RSB over non-RSB in reducing anaesthetics and opioid consumption, postoperative pain intensity, and increasing time to first opioid/analgesic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37635853
doi: 10.2478/rjaic-2023-0006
pii: rjaic-2023-0006
pmc: PMC10448445
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
43-50Informations de copyright
© 2023 Yerkin Abdildin et al., published by sciendo.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest: None declared.
Références
Minerva Anestesiol. 2018 Jan;84(1):18-24
pubmed: 28528536
Can J Anaesth. 2022 Jan;69(1):140-176
pubmed: 34739706
Br J Anaesth. 2017 Apr 01;118(4):517-526
pubmed: 28403398
Pril (Makedon Akad Nauk Umet Odd Med Nauki). 2017 Dec 1;38(3):135-142
pubmed: 29668467
Anaesthesia. 1999 May;54(5):475-9
pubmed: 10995147
Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 Feb 23;8:802039
pubmed: 35295183
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2019 Dec;33(4):559-571
pubmed: 31791571
J Gastrointest Surg. 2020 Jun;24(6):1290-1297
pubmed: 31147972
Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Sep 9;101(36):e30391
pubmed: 36086758
Br J Anaesth. 2017 Mar 1;118(3):424-429
pubmed: 28186223
J Surg Res. 2021 May;261:10-17
pubmed: 33387729
Paediatr Anaesth. 2016 Apr;26(4):363-71
pubmed: 26846889
Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim (Engl Ed). 2021 Oct;68(8):472-483
pubmed: 34538765
J Anesth. 2018 Apr;32(2):189-197
pubmed: 29423579
Anaesth Intensive Care. 2017 Jul;45(4):453-458
pubmed: 28673214
Control Clin Trials. 1996 Feb;17(1):1-12
pubmed: 8721797
Scand J Pain. 2021 May 14;21(4):671-679
pubmed: 33984888
Pain Res Manag. 2021 Mar 15;2021:5535730
pubmed: 33815632
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2015 Sep-Oct;40(5):568-71
pubmed: 26222347
J Pediatr Surg. 2020 Aug;55(8):1436-1443
pubmed: 32247598
Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 29;10(1):89
pubmed: 33781348