Chhabra Anjolie, Roy Chowdhury Apala, Prabhakar Hemanshu, Subramaniam Rajeshwari, Arora Mahesh Kumar, Srivastava Anurag, Kalaivani Mani
Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain Medicine and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Department of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Feb 25;2(2):CD012968. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012968.pub2.
Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers among women. Surgical removal of the cancer is the mainstay of treatment; however, tumour handling during surgery can cause microscopic dissemination of tumour cells and disease recurrence. The body's hormonal response to surgery (stress response) and general anaesthesia may suppress immunity, promoting tumour dissemination. Paravertebral anaesthesia numbs the site of surgery, provides good analgesia, and blunts the stress response, minimising the need for general anaesthesia.
To assess the effects of paravertebral anaesthesia with or without sedation compared to general anaesthesia in women undergoing breast cancer surgery, with important outcomes of quality of recovery, postoperative pain at rest, and mortality.
On 6 April 2020, we searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group (CBCG); CENTRAL (latest issue), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (via OvidSP); Embase (via OvidSP); the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal; and ClinicalTrials.gov for all prospectively registered and ongoing trials.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adult women undergoing breast cancer surgery in which paravertebral anaesthesia with or without sedation was compared to general anaesthesia. We did not include studies in which paravertebral anaesthesia was given as an adjunct to general anaesthesia and then this was compared to use of general anaesthesia.
Two review authors independently extracted details of trial methods and outcome data from eligible trials. When data could be pooled, analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis, and the random-effects model was used if there was heterogeneity. When data could not be pooled, the synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) approach was applied. The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
Nine studies (614 participants) were included in the review. All were RCTs of parallel design, wherein female patients aged > 18 years underwent breast cancer surgery under paravertebral anaesthesia or general anaesthesia. None of the studies assessed quality of recovery in the first three postoperative days using a validated questionnaire; most assessed factors affecting quality of recovery such as postoperative analgesic use, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), hospital stay, ambulation, and patient satisfaction. Paravertebral anaesthesia may reduce the 24-hour postoperative analgesic requirement (odds ratio (OR) 0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.34; 5 studies, 305 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to general anaesthesia. Heterogeneity (I² = 70%) was attributed to the fixed dose of opioids and non-steroidal analgesics administered postoperatively in one study (70 participants), masking a difference in analgesic requirements between groups. Paravertebral anaesthesia probably reduces the incidence of PONV (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.30; 6 studies, 324 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), probably results in a shorter hospital stay (mean difference (MD) -79.39 minutes, 95% CI -107.38 to -51.40; 3 studies, 174 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably reduces time to ambulation compared to general anaesthesia (SWiM analysis): percentages indicate vote counting based on direction of effect (100%, 95% CI 51.01% to 100%; P = 0.125; 4 studies, 375 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Paravertebral anaesthesia probably results in higher patient satisfaction (MD 5.52 points, 95% CI 1.30 to 9.75; 3 studies, 129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) on a 0 to 100 scale 24 hours postoperatively compared to general anaesthesia. Postoperative pain at rest and on movement was assessed at 2, 6, and 24 postoperative hours on a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS). Four studies (224 participants) found that paravertebral anaesthesia as compared to general anaesthesia probably reduced pain at 2 postoperative hours (MD -2.95, 95% CI -3.37 to -2.54; moderate-certainty evidence). Five studies (324 participants) found that paravertebral anaesthesia may reduce pain at rest at 6 hours postoperatively (MD -1.54, 95% CI -3.20 to 0.11; low-certainty evidence). Five studies (278 participants) found that paravertebral anaesthesia may reduce pain at rest at 24 hours postoperatively (MD -1.19, 95% CI -2.27 to -0.10; low-certainty evidence). Differences in the methods of two studies (119 participants) and addition of clonidine to the local anaesthetic in two studies (109 participants), respectively, contributed to the heterogeneity (I² = 96%) observed for these two outcomes. Two studies (130 participants) found that paravertebral anaesthesia may reduce pain on movement at 6 hours (MD-2.57, 95% CI -3.97 to -1.17) and at 24 hours (MD -2.12, 95% CI -4.80 to 0.55; low-certainty evidence). Heterogeneity (I² = 96%) was observed for both outcomes and could be due to methodological differences between studies. None of the studies reported mortality related to the anaesthetic technique. Eight studies (574 participants) evaluated adverse outcomes with paravertebral anaesthesia: epidural spread (0.7%), minor bleeding (1.4%), pleural puncture not associated with pneumothorax (0.3%), and Horner's syndrome (7.1%). These complications were self-limiting and resolved without treatment. No data are available on disease-free survival, chronic pain, and quality of life. Blinding of personnel or participants was not possible in any study, as a regional anaesthetic technique was compared to general anaesthesia. Risk of bias was judged to be serious, as seven studies had concerns of selection bias and three of detection bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence shows that paravertebral anaesthesia probably reduces PONV, hospital stay, postoperative pain (at 2 hours), and time to ambulation and results in greater patient satisfaction on the first postoperative day compared to general anaesthesia. Paravertebral anaesthesia may also reduce postoperative analgesic use and postoperative pain at 6 and 24 hours at rest and on movement based on low-certainty evidence. However, RCTs using validated questionnaires are needed to confirm these results. Adverse events observed with paravertebral anaesthesia are rare.
乳腺癌是女性中最常见的癌症之一。手术切除肿瘤是主要的治疗方法;然而,手术过程中对肿瘤的处理可能会导致肿瘤细胞的微小播散和疾病复发。身体对手术的激素反应(应激反应)和全身麻醉可能会抑制免疫力,促进肿瘤播散。椎旁麻醉可使手术部位麻木,提供良好的镇痛效果,并减轻应激反应,从而减少全身麻醉的需求。
评估在接受乳腺癌手术的女性中,与全身麻醉相比,椎旁麻醉联合或不联合镇静的效果,重点关注恢复质量、术后静息痛和死亡率等重要结局。
2020年4月6日,我们检索了Cochrane乳腺癌小组(CBCG)的专业注册库;Cochrane图书馆中的CENTRAL(最新期);MEDLINE(通过OvidSP);Embase(通过OvidSP);世界卫生组织(WHO)国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)搜索门户;以及ClinicalTrials.gov,以获取所有前瞻性注册和正在进行的试验。
我们纳入了在成年女性中进行的随机对照试验(RCT),这些女性接受乳腺癌手术,比较了椎旁麻醉联合或不联合镇静与全身麻醉的效果。我们未纳入将椎旁麻醉作为全身麻醉辅助手段并与单纯全身麻醉进行比较的研究。
两位综述作者独立从符合条件的试验中提取试验方法和结局数据的详细信息。当数据可以合并时,基于意向性分析进行分析,若存在异质性则使用随机效应模型。当数据无法合并时,采用无荟萃分析的综合分析(SWiM)方法。采用GRADE方法评估每个结局的证据确定性。
本综述纳入了9项研究(614名参与者)。所有研究均为平行设计的RCT,其中年龄大于18岁的女性患者在椎旁麻醉或全身麻醉下接受乳腺癌手术。没有研究使用经过验证的问卷评估术后前三天的恢复质量;大多数研究评估了影响恢复质量的因素,如术后镇痛药物使用、术后恶心呕吐(PONV)、住院时间、活动情况和患者满意度。与全身麻醉相比,椎旁麻醉可能会降低术后24小时的镇痛需求(比值比(OR)0.07,95%置信区间(CI)0.01至0.34;5项研究,305名参与者;低确定性证据)。异质性(I² = 70%)归因于一项研究(70名参与者)中术后给予的固定剂量阿片类药物和非甾体类镇痛药,掩盖了两组之间镇痛需求的差异。椎旁麻醉可能会降低PONV的发生率(OR 0.16,95% CI 0.08至0.30;6项研究,324名参与者;中等确定性证据),可能导致住院时间缩短(平均差(MD)-79.39分钟,95% CI -107.38至-51.40;3项研究,174名参与者;中等确定性证据),与全身麻醉相比,可能会缩短活动时间(SWiM分析):百分比表示基于效应方向的投票计数(100%,95% CI 51.01%至100%;P = 0.125;4项研究,375名参与者;中等确定性证据)。与全身麻醉相比,椎旁麻醉可能会使术后24小时患者满意度更高(MD 5.52分,95% CI 1.30至9.75;3项研究,129名参与者;中等确定性证据),采用0至100分制。术后静息痛和活动痛在术后2、6和24小时采用0至10视觉模拟评分法(VAS)进行评估。4项研究(224名参与者)发现,与全身麻醉相比,椎旁麻醉可能会降低术后2小时的疼痛(MD -2.95,95% CI -3.37至-2.54;中等确定性证据)。5项研究(324名参与者)发现,椎旁麻醉可能会降低术后6小时的静息痛(MD -1.54,95% CI -3.20至0.11;低确定性证据)。5项研究(278名参与者)发现,椎旁麻醉可能会降低术后24小时的静息痛(MD -1.19,95% CI -2.27至-0.10;低确定性证据)。两项研究(119名参与者)的方法差异以及两项研究(109名参与者)在局部麻醉中添加可乐定,分别导致了这两个结局观察到的异质性(I² = 96%)。两项研究(130名参与者)发现,椎旁麻醉可能会降低6小时(MD -2.57,95% CI -3.97至-1.17)和24小时(MD -2.12,95% CI -4.80至0.55;低确定性证据)活动时的疼痛。这两个结局均观察到异质性(I² = 96%),可能是由于研究之间的方法学差异。没有研究报告与麻醉技术相关的死亡率。8项研究(574名参与者)评估了椎旁麻醉的不良结局:硬膜外扩散(0.7%)、轻微出血(1.4%)、未伴有气胸的胸膜穿刺(0.3%)和霍纳综合征(7.1%)。这些并发症为自限性,无需治疗即可缓解。关于无病生存期、慢性疼痛和生活质量没有数据。由于将区域麻醉技术与全身麻醉进行比较,任何研究都无法对人员或参与者进行盲法。偏倚风险被判定为严重,因为7项研究存在选择偏倚问题,3项研究存在检测偏倚问题。
中等确定性证据表明,与全身麻醉相比,椎旁麻醉可能会降低PONV、住院时间、术后疼痛(2小时时)和活动时间,并在术后第一天导致更高的患者满意度。基于低确定性证据,椎旁麻醉还可能会减少术后镇痛药物使用以及术后6小时和24小时静息和活动时的疼痛。然而,需要使用经过验证的问卷的RCT来证实这些结果。观察到的椎旁麻醉不良事件很少见。