2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block for postoperative short-term outcomes in lumbar spine surgery: A meta-analysis and systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Background:

          Patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery usually suffer from moderate to severe acute pain. Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been applied to relieve acute pain in various surgeries and improve postoperative outcomes. This study aimed to further identify the efficacy and safety of erector spinae plane block in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. This study also evaluates the outcomes of the erector spinae plane block compared with other regional blocks.

          Methods:

          We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Embase, and CINAHL databases to identify all randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of ESPB on postoperative pain after lumbar spine surgery. The primary outcome is postoperative total opioid consumption in 24 hours. The secondary outcomes are postoperative pain scores, intraoperative opioid consumption, time to first rescue analgesia, number of patients requiring rescue analgesia, first time to ambulation after surgery, length of hospital stay, patients’ satisfaction score, and postoperative side effects such as postoperative nausea and vomiting, itching.

          Results:

          A total of 19 randomized controlled trials are included in the final analysis. Compared with no/sham block, ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block can decrease perioperative opioid consumption including intraoperative opioid consumption: standardized mean difference (SMD) = −3.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) (−3.99, −2.09), P < .01, and opioid consumption postoperatively: (SMD = −2.80, 95% CI [−3.61, −2.00], P < .01); reduce postoperative pain at 2, 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours both at rest and movement; meanwhile shorten time to hospital length of stay: (SMD = −1.01, 95% CI [−1.72, 0.30], P = .006), decrease postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.35, 95% CI [0.27, 0.46], P < .00001), and improve patient satisfaction (SMD = −2.03, 95% CI [−0.96, 3.11], P = .0002). But ultrasound-guided ESPB doesn’t shorten the time to ambulation after surgery (SMD = −0.56, 95% CI [−1.21, 0.08], P = .09). Additionally, ESPB is not superior to other regional blocks (e.g., thoracolumbar interfascial plane/midtransverse process to pleura block).

          Conclusion:

          This meta-analysis demonstrates that ultrasound-guided ESPB can provide effective postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery and improve postoperative outcomes, and it deserves to be recommended as an analgesic adjunct in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgeries.

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

            David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range

              Background In systematic reviews and meta-analysis, researchers often pool the results of the sample mean and standard deviation from a set of similar clinical trials. A number of the trials, however, reported the study using the median, the minimum and maximum values, and/or the first and third quartiles. Hence, in order to combine results, one may have to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation for such trials. Methods In this paper, we propose to improve the existing literature in several directions. First, we show that the sample standard deviation estimation in Hozo et al.’s method (BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13, 2005) has some serious limitations and is always less satisfactory in practice. Inspired by this, we propose a new estimation method by incorporating the sample size. Second, we systematically study the sample mean and standard deviation estimation problem under several other interesting settings where the interquartile range is also available for the trials. Results We demonstrate the performance of the proposed methods through simulation studies for the three frequently encountered scenarios, respectively. For the first two scenarios, our method greatly improves existing methods and provides a nearly unbiased estimate of the true sample standard deviation for normal data and a slightly biased estimate for skewed data. For the third scenario, our method still performs very well for both normal data and skewed data. Furthermore, we compare the estimators of the sample mean and standard deviation under all three scenarios and present some suggestions on which scenario is preferred in real-world applications. Conclusions In this paper, we discuss different approximation methods in the estimation of the sample mean and standard deviation and propose some new estimation methods to improve the existing literature. We conclude our work with a summary table (an Excel spread sheet including all formulas) that serves as a comprehensive guidance for performing meta-analysis in different situations. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-135) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Medicine (Baltimore)
                MD
                Medicine
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                0025-7974
                1536-5964
                17 February 2023
                17 February 2023
                : 102
                : 7
                : e32981
                Affiliations
                [a ] Department of Anesthesiology, The Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu City, China.
                Author notes
                * Correspondence: Hui Liu, No. 82 Qinglong Street, Qingyang District, Chengdu City, Sichuan Province 610000, China (e-mail: 310720836@ 123456qq.com ).
                Article
                00005
                10.1097/MD.0000000000032981
                9936003
                36800574
                800469d4-ea41-4e6e-8598-4577108f5a14
                Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 17 September 2022
                : 25 January 2023
                : 25 January 2023
                Categories
                3300
                Research Article
                Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                erector spinae plane block,lumbar spine surgery,meta-analysis,postoperative analgesia,short-term outcome,ultrasound-guided

                Comments

                Comment on this article