Guay Joanne, Suresh Santhanam, Kopp Sandra
Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 19;2(2):CD011436. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011436.pub2.
The use of ultrasound guidance for regional anaesthesia has become popular over the past two decades. However, it is not recognized by all experts as an essential tool. The cost of an ultrasound machine is substantially higher than the cost of other tools such as a nerve stimulator.
To determine whether ultrasound guidance offers any clinical advantage when neuraxial and peripheral nerve blocks are performed in children in terms of increasing the success rate or decreasing the rate of complications.
We searched the following databases to March 2015: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP) and Scopus (from inception to 27 January 2015).
We included all parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of ultrasound guidance used when a regional blockade technique was performed in children, and that included any of our selected outcomes.
We assessed selected studies for risk of bias by using the assessment tool of The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently extracted data. We graded the level of evidence for each outcome according to the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group scale.
We included 20 studies (1241 participants) for which the source of funding was a government organization (two studies), a charitable organization (one study), an institutional department (four studies) or an unspecified source (11 studies); two studies declared that they received help from the industry (equipment loan). In 14 studies (939 participants), ultrasound guidance increased the success rate by decreasing the occurrence of a failed block: risk difference (RD) -0.11 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to -0.05); I(2) = 64%; number needed for additional beneficial outcome for a peripheral nerve block (NNTB) 6 (95% CI 5 to 8). Blocks were performed under general anaesthesia (usual clinical practice in this population); therefore, haemodynamic changes to the surgical stimulus (rather than classic sensory/motor blockade evaluation) were used to define success. For peripheral nerve blocks, the younger the child, the greater was the benefit. In eight studies (414 participants), pain scores at one hour in the post-anaesthesia care unit were reduced when ultrasound guidance was used; however, the clinical relevance of the difference was unclear (equivalent to -0.2 on a scale from 0 to 10). In eight studies (358 participants), block duration was longer when ultrasound guidance was used: standardized mean difference (SMD) 1.21 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.65; I(2) = 73%; equivalent to 62 minutes). Here again, younger children benefited most from ultrasound guidance. Time to perform the procedure was reduced when ultrasound guidance was used for pre-scanning before a neuraxial block (SMD -1.97, 95% CI -2.41 to -1.54; I(2) = 0%; equivalent to 2.4 minutes; two studies with 122 participants) or as an out-of-plane technique (SMD -0.68, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.40; I(2) = 0%; equivalent to 94 seconds; two studies with 204 participants). In two studies (122 participants), ultrasound guidance reduced the number of needle passes required to perform the block (SMD -0.90, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.52; I(2) = 0%; equivalent to 0.6 needle pass per participant). For two studies (204 participants), we could not demonstrate a difference in the incidence of bloody puncture when ultrasound guidance was used for neuraxial blockade, but we found that the number of participants was well below the optimal information size (RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.04). No major complications were reported for any of the 1241 participants. We rated the quality of evidence as high for success, pain scores at one hour, block duration, time to perform the block and number of needle passes. We rated the quality of evidence as low for bloody punctures.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound guidance seems advantageous, particularly in young children, for whom it improves the success rate and increases the block duration. Additional data are required before conclusions can be drawn on the effect of ultrasound guidance in reducing the rate of bloody puncture.
在过去二十年中,超声引导用于区域麻醉已变得流行。然而,并非所有专家都认为它是一种必不可少的工具。超声仪的成本大大高于神经刺激器等其他工具的成本。
确定在儿童进行神经轴索阻滞和周围神经阻滞时,超声引导在提高成功率或降低并发症发生率方面是否具有任何临床优势。
我们检索了以下数据库至2015年3月:Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE(OvidSP)、EMBASE(OvidSP)和Scopus(从创刊到2015年1月27日)。
我们纳入了所有平行随机对照试验(RCT),这些试验评估了在儿童进行区域阻滞技术时使用超声引导的效果,并且包括我们选定的任何结果。
我们使用Cochrane协作网的评估工具评估选定研究的偏倚风险。两位综述作者独立提取数据。我们根据GRADE(推荐分级、评估、制定和评价)工作组量表对每个结果的证据水平进行分级。
我们纳入了20项研究(1241名参与者),其资金来源为政府组织(2项研究)、慈善组织(1项研究)、机构部门(4项研究)或未指明来源(11项研究);2项研究声明他们接受了行业帮助(设备贷款)。在14项研究(939名参与者)中,超声引导通过减少阻滞失败的发生提高了成功率:风险差(RD)-0.11(95%置信区间(CI)-0.17至-0.05);I² = 64%;周围神经阻滞额外有益结果所需的人数(NNTB)为6(95%CI 5至8)。阻滞在全身麻醉下进行(该人群的常规临床实践);因此,使用对手术刺激的血流动力学变化(而非经典的感觉/运动阻滞评估)来定义成功。对于周围神经阻滞,儿童年龄越小,获益越大。在8项研究(414名参与者)中,使用超声引导时,麻醉后护理单元1小时的疼痛评分降低;然而,差异的临床相关性尚不清楚(相当于0至10分制中的-0.2)。在8项研究(358名参与者)中,使用超声引导时阻滞持续时间更长:标准化均差(SMD)1.21(95%CI 0.76至1.65;I² = 73%;相当于62分钟)。同样,年龄较小的儿童从超声引导中获益最大。当超声引导用于神经轴索阻滞前的预扫描时(SMD -1.97,95%CI -2.41至-1.54;I² = 0%;相当于2.4分钟;2项研究,122名参与者)或作为平面外技术时(SMD -0.68,95%CI -0.96至-0.40;I² = 0%;相当于94秒;2项研究,204名参与者),操作时间缩短。在2项研究(122名参与者)中,超声引导减少了进行阻滞所需的进针次数(SMD -0.90,95%CI -1.27至-0.52;I² = 0%;相当于每位参与者减少0.6次进针)。对于2项研究(204名参与者),当超声引导用于神经轴索阻滞时,我们无法证明血性穿刺发生率存在差异,但我们发现参与者数量远低于最佳信息规模(RD -0.07,95%CI -0.19至0.04)。1241名参与者中均未报告任何重大并发症。我们将成功、1小时疼痛评分、阻滞持续时间、操作时间和进针次数的证据质量评为高。我们将血性穿刺的证据质量评为低。
超声引导似乎具有优势,特别是对于幼儿,它可提高成功率并延长阻滞持续时间。在得出超声引导对降低血性穿刺发生率的影响的结论之前,还需要更多数据。