Transverse abdominis plane block compared with patient-controlled epidural analgesia following abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Author:

Jeong Young Hyun,Jung Ji-Yoon,Cho Hyeyeon,Yoon Hyun-Kyu,Yang Seong-Mi,Lee Ho-Jin,Kim Won Ho

Abstract

AbstractThoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) and transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block are used for pain control after abdominal surgery. Although there have been several meta-analyses comparing these two techniques, the conclusion was limited by a small number of studies and heterogeneity among studies. Our meta-analysis used the Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane central library databases from their inception through September 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TEA and TAP block were included. The pre-specified primary outcome was the pain score at rest at 12 h postoperatively. Twenty-two RCTs involving 1975 patients were included. Pooled analyses showed the pain score at rest at 12 h postoperatively was significantly different between groups favoring TEA group (Mean difference [MD] 0.58, 95% confidence interval CI − 0.01, 1.15, P = 0.04, I2 = 94%). TEA group significantly reduced the pain score at 48 h at rest (MD 0.59, 95% CI 0.15, 1.03, P = 0.009, I2 = 86%) and at 48 h at movement (MD 0.53, 95% CI 0.07, 0.99, P = 0.03, I2 = 76%). However, there was no significant difference at other time points. Time to ambulation was shorter in TAP block but the incidence of hypotension at 24 h and 72 h was significantly lower in TAP block compared to TEA. Trial sequential analysis showed that the required information size has not yet been reached. Our meta-analysis demonstrated there was no significant or clinically meaningful difference in the postoperative pain scores between TEA and TAP block group. Given the insufficient information size revealed by TSA, the high risk of bias of our included studies, and the significant heterogeneity of our meta-analysis results, our results should be interpreted carefully but it is not likely that the addition of further studies could prove any clinically meaningful difference in pain score between these two techniques.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Multidisciplinary

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3