Ong Cliff K-S, Lirk Philipp, Seymour Robin A, Jenkins Brian J
*Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, National University of Singapore; †Department of Anesthesiology & Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria; ‡Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom; and §Department of Anaesthetics and Intensive Care Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Wales, United Kingdom.
Anesth Analg. 2005 Mar;100(3):757-773. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000144428.98767.0E.
Whether preemptive analgesic interventions are more effective than conventional regimens in managing acute postoperative pain remains controversial. We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials that specifically compared preoperative analgesic interventions with similar postoperative analgesic interventions via the same route. The retrieved reports were stratified according to five types of analgesic interventions: epidural analgesia, local anesthetic wound infiltration, systemic N-methyl-d-aspartic acid (NMDA) receptor antagonists, systemic nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and systemic opioids. The primary outcome measures analyzed were the pain intensity scores, supplemental analgesic consumption, and time to first analgesic consumption. Sixty-six studies with data from 3261 patients were analyzed. Data were combined by using a fixed-effect model, and the effect size index (ES) used was the standardized mean difference. When the data from all three outcome measures were combined, the ES was most pronounced for preemptive administration of epidural analgesia (ES, 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.47), local anesthetic wound infiltration (ES, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.17-0.40), and NSAID administration (ES, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.48). Whereas preemptive epidural analgesia resulted in consistent improvements in all three outcome variables, preemptive local anesthetic wound infiltration and NSAID administration improved analgesic consumption and time to first rescue analgesic request, but not postoperative pain scores. The least proof of efficacy was found in the case of systemic NMDA antagonist (ES, 0.09; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.22) and opioid (ES, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.07) administration, and the results remain equivocal.
在处理急性术后疼痛方面,预防性镇痛干预措施是否比传统方案更有效仍存在争议。我们系统地检索了随机对照试验,这些试验通过相同途径将术前镇痛干预措施与类似的术后镇痛干预措施进行了具体比较。检索到的报告根据五种镇痛干预类型进行了分层:硬膜外镇痛、局部麻醉伤口浸润、全身性N-甲基-D-天冬氨酸(NMDA)受体拮抗剂、全身性非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)和全身性阿片类药物。分析的主要结局指标为疼痛强度评分、补充镇痛药消耗量以及首次使用镇痛药的时间。对66项包含3261例患者数据的研究进行了分析。采用固定效应模型合并数据,使用的效应量指标为标准化均数差。当合并所有三项结局指标的数据时,硬膜外镇痛的预防性给药效应量最为显著(效应量,0.38;95%置信区间[CI],0.28 - 0.47),其次是局部麻醉伤口浸润(效应量,0.29;95% CI,0.17 - 0.40)和NSAIDs给药(效应量,0.39;95% CI,0.27 - 0.48)。虽然预防性硬膜外镇痛在所有三个结局变量上均带来了持续改善,但预防性局部麻醉伤口浸润和NSAIDs给药改善了镇痛药消耗量以及首次使用急救镇痛药的时间,但未改善术后疼痛评分。全身性NMDA拮抗剂(效应量,0.09;95% CI,-0.03至0.22)和阿片类药物(效应量,-0.10;95% CI,-0.26至0.07)给药的疗效证据最少,结果仍不明确。