早产低龄婴儿行腹股沟疝修补术时区域麻醉(脊髓麻醉、硬膜外麻醉、骶管麻醉)与全身麻醉的比较
Regional (spinal, epidural, caudal) versus general anaesthesia in preterm infants undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy in early infancy.
作者信息
Jones Lisa J, Craven Paul D, Lakkundi Anil, Foster Jann P, Badawi Nadia
机构信息
Central Clinical School, Discipline of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
出版信息
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jun 9;2015(6):CD003669. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003669.pub2.
BACKGROUND
With improvements in neonatal intensive care, more preterm infants are surviving the neonatal period and presenting for surgery in early infancy. Inguinal hernia is the most common condition requiring early surgery, appearing in 38% of infants whose birth weight is between 751 grams and 1000 grams. Approximately 20% to 30% of otherwise healthy preterm infants having general anaesthesia for inguinal hernia surgery at a postmature age have at least one apnoeic episode within the postoperative period. Research studies have failed to adequately distinguish the effects of apnoeic episodes from other complications of extreme preterm gestation on the risk of brain injury, or to investigate the potential impact of postoperative apnoea upon longer term neurodevelopment. In addition to episodes of apnoea, there are concerns that anaesthetic and sedative agents may have a direct toxic effect on the developing brain of preterm infants even after reaching postmature age. It is proposed that regional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of postoperative apnoea, avoid the risk of anaesthetic-related neurotoxicity and improve neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants requiring surgery for inguinal hernia at a postmature age.
OBJECTIVES
To determine if regional anaesthesia reduces postoperative apnoea, bradycardia, the use of assisted ventilation, and neurological impairment, in comparison to general anaesthesia, in preterm infants undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy at a postmature age.
SEARCH METHODS
The following databases and resources were searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE (December 2002 to 25 February 2015), EMBASE (December 2002 to 25 February 2015), controlled-trials.com and clinicaltrials.gov, reference lists of published trials and abstracts published in Pediatric Research and Pediatric Anesthesia.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of regional (spinal, epidural, caudal) versus general anaesthesia, or combined regional and general anaesthesia, in former preterm infants undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy in early infancy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two of three review authors (LJ, JF, AL) independently extracted data and performed analyses. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data. The methodological quality of each study was assessed according to the criteria of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Data were analysed using Review Manager 5. Meta-analyses were performed with calculation of risk ratios (RR) and risk difference (RD), along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
Seven small trials comparing spinal with general anaesthesia in the repair of inguinal hernia were identified. Two trial reports are listed as 'Studies awaiting classification' due to insufficient information on which to base an eligibility assessment. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of postoperative apnoea/bradycardia (typical RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.06; 4 studies, 138 infants), postoperative oxygen desaturation (typical RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.11; 2 studies, 48 infants), the use of postoperative analgesics (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.18; 1 study, 44 infants), or postoperative respiratory support (typical RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to1.64; 3 studies, 98 infants) between infants receiving spinal or general anaesthesia. When infants who had received preoperative sedatives were excluded, the meta-analysis supported a reduction in the risk of postoperative apnoea in the spinal anaesthesia group (typical RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.82; 4 studies, 129 infants). Infants with no history of apnoea in the preoperative period and receiving spinal anaesthesia (including a subset of infants who had received sedatives) had a reduced risk of postoperative apnoea and this reached statistical significance (typical RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.81; 4 studies, 134 infants). Infants receiving spinal rather than general anaesthesia had a statistically significant increased risk of anaesthetic agent failure (typical RR 7.83, 95% CI 1.51 to 40.58; 3 studies, 92 infants). Infants randomised to receive spinal anaesthesia had an increased risk of anaesthetic placement failure of borderline statistical significance (typical RR 7.38, 95% CI 0.98 to 55.52; typical RD 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.27; 3 studies, 90 infants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the administration of spinal in preference to general anaesthesia without pre- or intraoperative sedative administration may reduce the risk of postoperative apnoea by up to 47% in preterm infants undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy at a postmature age. For every four infants treated with spinal anaesthesia, one infant may be prevented from having an episode of postoperative apnoea (NNTB=4). In those infants without preoperative apnoea, there is low-quality evidence that spinal rather than general anaesthesia may reduce the risk of preoperative apnoea by up to 66%. There was no difference in the effect of spinal compared with general anaesthesia on the overall incidence of postoperative apnoea, bradycardia, oxygen desaturation, need for postoperative analgesics or respiratory support. Limitations on these results included varying use of sedative agents, or different anaesthetic agents, or combinations of these factors, in addition to trial quality aspects such as allocation concealment and inadequate blinding of intervention and outcome assessment. The meta-analyses may have inadequate power to detect a difference between groups for some outcomes, with estimates of effect based on a total population of fewer than 140 infants.The effect of newer, rapidly acting, quickly metabolised general anaesthetic agents on safety with regard to the risk of postoperative apnoea and neurotoxic exposure has not so far been established in randomised trials. There is potential for harm from postoperative apnoea and direct brain toxicity from general anaesthetic agents superimposed upon pre-existing altered brain development in infants born at very to extreme preterm gestation. This highlights the clear need for the examination of neurodevelopmental outcomes in the context of large randomised controlled trials of general, compared with spinal, anaesthesia, in former preterm infants undergoing surgery for inguinal hernia.There is a particular need to examine the impact of the choice of spinal over general anaesthesia on respiratory and neurological outcomes in high-risk infant subgroups with severe respiratory disease and previous brain injury.
背景
随着新生儿重症监护技术的进步,越来越多的早产儿度过新生儿期并在婴儿早期接受手术。腹股沟疝是最常见的需要早期手术的疾病,在出生体重751克至1000克的婴儿中,发病率为38%。在足月后接受腹股沟疝手术的健康早产儿中,约20%至30%在术后至少出现一次呼吸暂停发作。研究未能充分区分呼吸暂停发作与极早早产的其他并发症对脑损伤风险的影响,也未调查术后呼吸暂停对长期神经发育的潜在影响。除了呼吸暂停发作外,人们还担心麻醉和镇静剂即使在足月后也可能对早产儿发育中的大脑产生直接毒性作用。有人提出,区域麻醉可能会降低术后呼吸暂停的风险,避免与麻醉相关的神经毒性风险,并改善在足月后因腹股沟疝需要手术的早产儿的神经发育结局。
目的
确定与全身麻醉相比,区域麻醉是否能降低足月后接受腹股沟疝修补术的早产儿术后呼吸暂停、心动过缓、辅助通气的使用以及神经功能损害的发生率。
检索方法
检索了以下数据库和资源:Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL,Cochrane图书馆,2015年第2期)、MEDLINE(2002年12月至2015年2月25日)、EMBASE(2002年12月至2015年2月25日)、controlled-trials.com和clinicaltrials.gov,以及发表在《儿科研究》和《儿科麻醉学》上的已发表试验的参考文献列表和摘要。
选择标准
对足月后早期接受腹股沟疝修补术的前早产儿进行区域(脊髓、硬膜外、骶管)与全身麻醉或区域与全身联合麻醉的随机和半随机对照试验。
数据收集与分析
三位综述作者(LJ、JF、AL)中至少有两位独立提取数据并进行分析。与作者联系以获取缺失数据。根据Cochrane新生儿综述组的标准评估每项研究的方法学质量。使用Review Manager 5进行数据分析。进行荟萃分析时计算风险比(RR)和风险差(RD),并在适当情况下计算其95%置信区间(CI)。
主要结果
确定了7项比较脊髓麻醉与全身麻醉修复腹股沟疝的小型试验。由于缺乏足够的信息进行资格评估,两份试验报告被列为“等待分类的研究”。在术后呼吸暂停/心动过缓风险(典型RR 0.72,95%CI 0.48至1.06;4项研究,138例婴儿)、术后氧饱和度降低(典型RR 0.82,95%CI 0.61至1.11;2项研究,48例婴儿)、术后镇痛药的使用(RR 0.42,95%CI 0.15至1.18;1项研究,44例婴儿)或术后呼吸支持(典型RR 0.09,95%CI 0.01至1.64;3项研究,98例婴儿)方面,接受脊髓麻醉或全身麻醉的婴儿之间无统计学显著差异。排除术前接受镇静剂的婴儿后,荟萃分析支持脊髓麻醉组术后呼吸暂停风险降低(典型RR 0.53,95%CI 0.34至0.82;4项研究,129例婴儿)。术前无呼吸暂停病史且接受脊髓麻醉的婴儿(包括接受镇静剂的婴儿亚组)术后呼吸暂停风险降低,且达到统计学显著水平(典型RR 0.34,95%CI 0.14至0.81;4项研究,134例婴儿)。接受脊髓麻醉而非全身麻醉的婴儿麻醉剂失效风险有统计学显著增加(典型RR 7.83,95%CI 1.51至40.58;3项研究,92例婴儿)。随机接受脊髓麻醉的婴儿麻醉放置失败风险增加,具有边缘统计学显著性(典型RR 7.38,95%CI 0.98至55.52;典型RD 0.15,95%CI 0.03至0.27;3项研究,90例婴儿)。
作者结论
有中等质量的证据表明,在足月后接受腹股沟疝修补术的早产儿中,优先选择脊髓麻醉而非全身麻醉且术前或术中不使用镇静剂,可将术后呼吸暂停风险降低多达47%。每4例接受脊髓麻醉治疗的婴儿中,可能有1例可预防术后呼吸暂停发作(预防一例术后呼吸暂停发作所需治疗人数=NNTB=4)。在那些术前无呼吸暂停的婴儿中,有低质量的证据表明脊髓麻醉而非全身麻醉可将术前呼吸暂停风险降低多达66%。脊髓麻醉与全身麻醉相比,对术后呼吸暂停、心动过缓、氧饱和度降低、术后镇痛药需求或呼吸支持的总体发生率无差异。这些结果的局限性包括镇静剂使用的差异、麻醉剂的不同或这些因素的组合,以及试验质量方面,如分配隐藏和干预及结局评估的盲法不足。荟萃分析可能没有足够的效力检测某些结局组间的差异,效应估计基于少于140例婴儿的总人群。新型、起效快、代谢快的全身麻醉剂在术后呼吸暂停风险和神经毒性暴露方面的安全性尚未在随机试验中得到证实。在极早早产出生的婴儿中,术后呼吸暂停和全身麻醉剂直接脑毒性叠加在预先存在的脑发育改变上可能造成伤害。这突出表明,在对前早产儿进行腹股沟疝手术的全身麻醉与脊髓麻醉的大型随机对照试验中,明确需要检查神经发育结局。特别需要研究在患有严重呼吸系统疾病和既往脑损伤的高危婴儿亚组中,选择脊髓麻醉而非全身麻醉对呼吸和神经结局的影响。
相似文献
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015-6-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-10-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-4-11
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-2-12
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015-11-25
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024-7-4
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-9-13
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-10-17
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-8-31
引用本文的文献
Anesthesiology. 2025-8-1
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2024-6
Children (Basel). 2022-2-11
J Perinatol. 2021-3
Paediatr Drugs. 2019-12
本文引用的文献
J Pediatr. 2011-11-1
Clin Ther. 2005-6