首页> 外文期刊>European journal of medical research. >Should we abandon regional anesthesia in open inguinal hernia repair in adults?
【24h】

Should we abandon regional anesthesia in open inguinal hernia repair in adults?

机译:我们是否应该在成人腹股沟疝修补术中放弃区域麻醉?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Inguinal hernia repair is a common worldwide surgical procedure usually done in the outpatient setting. The purpose of this systematic review is to make an evidence-based meta-analysis to determine the possible benefits of regional (neuraxial block) anesthesia compared to general anesthesia in open inguinal hernia repair in adults. Cochrane Library, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCI-EXPANDED, SCOPUS as well as trial registries, conference proceedings and reference lists were searched. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compare neuraxial block (spinal or/and epidural) anesthesia (NABA) and general anesthesia (GA) were included. Main outcome measures were postoperative complications, urinary retention and postoperative pain. Seven RCTs were included in this review. A total of 308 patients were analyzed with 154 patients in each group. Overall complications were evenly distributed in NABA and in GA group [OR 1.17, 95 % CI (0.52-2.66)]. Urinary retention was statistically less frequent in GA group compared to NABA group [OR 0.25, 95 % CI (0.08-0.74)]. Movement-associated pain score 24 h after surgery was significantly lower in NABA group [SMD 5.59, 95 % CI (3.69-7.50)]. Time of first analgesia application was shorter in GA group [SMD 8.99, 95 % CI 6.10-11.89]. Compared to GA, NABA appears to be a more adequate technique in terms of postoperative pain control. However, when GA is applied, patients seem to have less voiding problems.
机译:腹股沟疝修补术是一种常见的全球外科手术,通常在门诊就诊。该系统评价的目的是进行基于证据的荟萃分析,以确定在成人腹股沟疝修补术中局部麻醉(神经阻滞)与全身麻醉相比可能的益处。检索了Cochrane图书馆,Medline,EMBASE,CINAHL,SCI-EXPANDED,SCOPUS以及审判注册表,会议记录和参考文献清单。仅包括比较神经阻滞(脊髓或/和硬膜外)麻醉(NABA)和全身麻醉(GA)的随机对照试验(RCT)。主要预后指标为术后并发症,尿retention留和术后疼痛。该评价包括七个RCT。分析了总共308例患者,每组154例患者。在NABA和GA组中,总体并发症平均分布[OR 1.17,95%CI(0.52-2.66)]。与NABA组相比,GA组的尿retention留率在统计学上较低[OR 0.25,95%CI(0.08-0.74)]。 NABA组术后24 h与运动相关的疼痛评分显着降低[SMD 5.59,95%CI(3.69-7.50)]。 GA组首次使用镇痛药的时间较短[SMD 8.99,95%CI 6.10-11.89]。与GA相比,就术后疼痛控制而言,NABA似乎是一种更合适的技术。但是,当应用GA时,患者的排尿问题似乎较少。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号