背景:自体肋软骨收获由于其稳定性,是颅面重建中的常用程序,可靠性,和多样性。然而,这种手术与术后严重的供体部位疼痛有关.因此,我们的目的是通过这项研究来比较肋间神经阻滞在治疗颅面重建肋软骨手术患者术后疼痛中的疗效。
方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)指南的首选报告项目报告本系统评价。该研究系统地回顾了MEDLINE,科克伦,和EMBASE数据库没有时间限制。
结果:由于回顾了文献,全文筛选了33篇文章,共14篇文章符合我们的纳入/排除标准。然而,只有4篇高质量RCT文章被纳入定量合成(荟萃分析).这项研究的结果表明,ICNB和对照组在术后12、24和48h的疼痛评分没有显着差异。在休息和咳嗽。因此,这两种技术都被认为是安全有效的。
结论:我们的结果表明,在多项研究中,ICNB预防性供区镇痛用于采集自体肋软骨的良好结果。然而,两个武器之间的总体结果微不足道。
方法:本期刊要求作者为每个提交的证据分配一个级别,该级别的证据适用于循证医学排名。这不包括评论文章,书评,和有关基础科学的手稿,动物研究,尸体研究,和实验研究。对于这些循证医学评级的完整描述,请参阅目录或在线作者说明www。springer.com/00266.
BACKGROUND: Autologous costal cartilage harvest is a common procedure in craniofacial reconstruction due to its stability, dependability, and diversity. However, such a procedure is associated with severe donor-site pain postoperatively. Therefore, we aim through this study to compare the efficacy of intercostal nerve block in the management of postoperative pain in patients undergoing costal cartilage harvest for craniofacial reconstruction.
METHODS: This systematic review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The study systematically reviewed MEDLINE, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases without time-limitation.
RESULTS: As a result of reviewing the literature, 33 articles were screened by full-text resulting in 14 articles which met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. However, only four high-quality RCT articles were included in the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). The findings of this study suggest that there is no significant difference in pain scores between ICNB and control groups at 12, 24, and 48 h postoperatively, both at rest and with coughing. Therefore, both techniques are considered safe and effective.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results show evidence of favorable outcome of preventive donor-site analgesia with ICNB for harvesting autologous costal cartilage in multiple studies. However, the overall outcomes were insignificant between the two arms.
METHODS: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.