论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较连续腹横肌平面阻滞(CTAP)与患者自控静脉镇痛(PCIA)在腹部外科术后的安全性及有效性。方法:以“连续腹横肌平面阻滞，连续腹横筋膜阻滞，病人自控镇痛，continuous/modified，transversus/transverse abdominis plane block，TAP block，patient controlled analgesia，patient-controlled analgesia，patient controlled intravenous analgesia，patient-controlled intravenous analgesia，PCA/PCIA/IV-PCA”等为检索关键词，检索PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、CNKI等数据库从建库以来至2021年2月的中英文文献。按照镇痛治疗方法分为连续腹横肌平面阻滞组(CTAP组)及患者自控静脉镇痛组(PCIA组)。使用Review Manager 5.4软件，对腹部外科术后恶心呕吐、头晕、疼痛评分、康复情况等结局指标进行Meta分析。计数资料使用风险比(n RR)合并统计量，计量资料使用均数±标准差(n Mean±n SD)合并统计量。使用n I2评价研究的异质性，使用固定效应模型或随机效应模型进行数据分析。n 结果:(1)文献检索结果：纳入6项随机对照试验，其中英文研究2篇，中文研究4篇，共包括479例患者。(2)Meta分析结果：与PCIA组相比，CTAP组术后恶心呕吐(n RR＝0.22，95%n CI：0.08～0.62，n P<0.01)、头晕(n RR＝0.27，95%n CI：0.09～0.79，n P＝0.02)不良反应发生率较低，术后24 h(n MD＝-0.75，95%n CI：-1.42～-0.08，n P＝0.03)、48 h(n MD＝-0.68，95%n CI：-1.05～-0.31，n P<0.001)活动状态时的疼痛评分较低，术后首次下床活动时间(n MD＝-0.49，95%n CI：-0.69～-0.30，n P<0.001)和首次排气时间(n MD＝-10.47，95%n CI：-13.53～-7.41，n P<0.001)较早，差异有统计学意义。但两组术后24 h(n MD＝-0.25，95%n CI：-0.57～0.08，n P＝0.14)、48 h(n MD＝-0.15，95%n CI：-0.39～0.09，n P＝0.22)静息状态时的疼痛评分及住院时间(n MD＝-1.01，95%n CI：-2.28～0.26，n P＝0.12)差异无显著统计学意义。n 结论:连续腹横肌平面阻滞是一种较为安全有效的镇痛方式，更符合加速康复外科理念，可推荐其作为一种患者自控静脉镇痛的替代方法。“,”Objective:To compare the safety and efficacy of continuous transversus abdominis plane (CTAP) block and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) in abdominal surgery postoperatively.Methods:PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI and other English and Chinese databases were searched since their establishment to February 2021 with “continuous/modified, transversus/transverse abdominis plane block, TAP block, patient controlled analgesia, patient-controlled analgesia, patient controlled intravenous analgesia, patient-controlled intravenous analgesia, PCA/PCIA/IV-PCA” as the search keywords. According to the analgesia treatment methods, patients were divided into continuous transversus abdominis plane block group (CTAP group) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia group (PCIA group). Review Manager 5.4 software was used to conduct a Meta-analysis on outcome indicators such as postoperative nausea and (or) vomiting (PONV), dizziness, pain score and recovery status after abdominal surgery. Risk ratio ( n RR) was calculated for counting data, n Mean ± n SD was calculated for measurement data. Heterogeneity was measured by n I2, and related data were analyzed by using either a fixed effects model or a random effects model.n Results:(1) The results of literature search: A total of 6 randomized controlled trials, including 2 published in English and 4 published in Chinese were analyzed, involving 479 patients. The results of the Meta-analysis: Compared with PCIA, CTAP block had lower incidence of PONV (n RR=0.22, 95%n CI: 0.08-0.62, n P<0.01), lower incidence of dizziness (n RR=0.27, 95%n CI: 0.09-0.79, n P=0.02), lower pain scores on movement at 24 h (n MD=-0.75, 95%n CI: -1.42--0.08, n P=0.03) and 48 h (n MD=-0.68, 95%n CI: -1.05--0.31, n P<0.001) postoperatively, and earlier time of first mobilization (n MD=-0.49, 95%n CI: -0.69--0.30, n P<0.001) and first exhaust (n MD=-10.47, 95%n CI: -13.53--7.41, n P<0.001), with statistically significant differences. However, there were no statistically significant differences in pain scores at rest at 24 h (n MD=-0.25, 95%n CI: -0.57-0.08, n P=0.14) and 48 h (n MD=-0.15, 95%n CI: -0.39-0.09, n P=0.22) postoperatively and postoperative length of hospital stay (n MD=-1.01, 95%n CI: -2.28-0.26, n P=0.12).n Conclusion:CTAP block is a relatively safe and effective analgesic method, and it′s more consistent with the concept of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and can be recommended as an alternative method of PCIA.