Long Kun, Zhou Chengfu, Liang Jingqiu, Tang Xixi, Li Zhijian, Chen Qi
Department of Anesthesiology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Department of Anesthesiology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China.
Indian J Anaesth. 2025 Jan;69(1):12-22. doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_679_24. Epub 2025 Jan 11.
The optimal analgesia for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) remains uncertain. This study aims to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of various analgesic strategies for PCNL.
We searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, ClinicalTrials.gov, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Ovid and EMBASE to identify all relevant randomised controlled trials published up to January 2024. Our review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024504578). The identified methods included erector spinae plane block (ESPB), paravertebral block (PVB), intercostal nerve block (ICNB), quadratus lumborum block (QLB) and local infiltration. Our primary outcomes consisted of 24-h cumulative opioid consumption and the time to first use of opioid medication postoperatively. Secondary outcomes encompassed pain scores at 2, 6, 12 and 24 h postoperatively, as well as occurrences of postoperative nausea and vomiting.
Overall, 27 trials met our inclusion criteria. QLB, PVB and ESPB demonstrated significant advantages in reducing 24-h postoperative opioid consumption and providing effective analgesia at all measured postoperative time points within 24 h, compared to the placebo group. However, there was no statistical difference between the three interventions. Similarly, there were no statistical differences in all outcomes between the ICNB and infiltration groups compared to the placebo group.
ESPB, PVB and QLB offer significant analgesic benefits for PCNL compared to placebo, with no significant differences in efficacy among them. Due to limited evidence, ICNB and local infiltration were found not to be more effective than placebo.
经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)的最佳镇痛方法仍不明确。本研究旨在进行系统评价和网状Meta分析,以比较PCNL各种镇痛策略的疗效。
我们检索了PubMed、ScienceDirect、ClinicalTrials.gov、MEDLINE、Web of Science、Ovid和EMBASE,以识别截至2024年1月发表的所有相关随机对照试验。我们的综述已在PROSPERO(注册号:CRD42024504578)上进行了前瞻性注册。确定的方法包括竖脊肌平面阻滞(ESPB)、椎旁阻滞(PVB)、肋间神经阻滞(ICNB)、腰方肌阻滞(QLB)和局部浸润。我们的主要结局包括术后24小时累积阿片类药物消耗量以及术后首次使用阿片类药物的时间。次要结局包括术后2、6、12和24小时的疼痛评分,以及术后恶心和呕吐的发生率。
总体而言,27项试验符合我们的纳入标准。与安慰剂组相比,QLB、PVB和ESPB在减少术后24小时阿片类药物消耗量以及在术后24小时内所有测量时间点提供有效镇痛方面显示出显著优势。然而,这三种干预措施之间没有统计学差异。同样,与安慰剂组相比,ICNB组和浸润组在所有结局方面也没有统计学差异。
与安慰剂相比,ESPB、PVB和QLB为PCNL提供了显著的镇痛益处,它们之间的疗效没有显著差异。由于证据有限,发现ICNB和局部浸润并不比安慰剂更有效。