Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology
https://bjan-sba.org/article/doi/10.1016/j.bjan.2012.09.007
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology
Miscellaneous

Comparação entre bloqueios peridural e paravertebral torácicos contínuos para analgesia pós-operatória em pacientes submetidos a toracotomias: revisão sistemática

Comparison between continuous thoracic epidural and paravertebral blocks for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing thoracotomy: systematic review

Alberto de Pontes Jardim Júnior; Thomas Rolf Erdmann; Thiago Viçoso dos Santos; Guilherme Muriano Brunharo; Clovis Tadeu Bevilacqua Filho; Márcio Joaquim Losso; Getúlio R. de Oliveira Filho

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjan.2012.09.007 Braz J Anesthesiol, vol.63, n5, p.433-442, 2013
PDF Português
PDF English
Downloads: 0
Views: 672

Resumo

INTRODUÇÃO E OBJETIVOS: Toracotomia é um procedimento associado à dor pós-operatória de forte intensidade. O bloqueio peridural (BPD) é considerado o padrão-ouro para o seu controle. O bloqueio paravertebral (BPV) é uma opção para o controle da dor pós-operatória. O objetivo deste estudo foi fazer metanálises focadas nas comparações entre as analgesias com bloqueio peridural torácico ou paravertebral contínuos quanto à eficácia relativa no controle da dor pós-toracotomia e à incidência de efeitos adversos. MÉTODOS: O estudo seguiu o protocolo Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Foram analisados desfechos, primário (dor pós-operatória em repouso), e secundários (retenção urinária, náuseas e vômitos e hipotensão arterial). A diferença média ponderada foi estimada para as variáveis contínuas e as razões de chances para as variáveis categóricas. RESULTADOS: Foram incluídos oito estudos prospectivos controlados de alocação aleatória. As metanálises não demonstraram diferenças estatisticamente significantes entre as duas técnicas quanto ao desfecho da dor pós-operatória em repouso nos momentos 4h, 8h, 12h, 16h, 20h, 24h, 36h e 48h. A incidência de retenção urinária foi maior no grupo submetido ao BPD (RC = 7,19; IC95 = 1,87-27,7). A ocorrência de hipotensão foi maior no grupo submetido ao BPD (RC = 10,28; IC95 = 2,95-35,77). Não houve diferença estatisticamente significante entre os dois grupos em relação ao desfecho náuseas/vômitos (RC=3,00; IC95=0,49-18,45). CONCLUSÃO: Não se observaram diferenças estatisticamente significantes quanto ao alívio da dor pós-toracotomia quando comparados os tratamentos BPD e BPV. O tratamento BPV mostrou menor incidência de efeitos colaterais com redução na frequência de retenção urinária e hipotensão.

Palavras-chave

ANALGESIA, Pós-operatório, Bloqueio Nervoso, CIRURGIA, Torácica, COMPLICAÇÕES, Pós-operatória, DOR, TÉCNICAS ANESTÉSICAS, Regional, peridural, torácica

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Thoracotomy is a procedure associated with postoperative severe pain. Epidural block (EB) is considered the gold standard for its control. Paravertebral block (PVB) is an option for the management of postoperative pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate by meta-analyses the effectiveness of continuous thoracic epidural and paravertebral blocks for pain management after thoracotomy and the incidence of adverse effects. METHOD: The study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol. We analyzed primary (postoperative pain at rest) and secondary outcomes (urinary retention, nausea, vomiting, hypotension). We estimated the weighted mean difference for continuous variables and odds ratios for categorical variables. RESULTS: We included eight prospective, randomized, controlled studies. Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between the two techniques regarding the outcomes of postoperative pain at rest at four, eight, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, and 48 hours. Incidence of urinary retention was higher in EP group (OR = 7.19, CI95 = 1.87 to 27.7). The occurrence of hypotension was higher in PVB group (OR = 10.28, 95 = 2.95 to 35.77). There was no statistically significant difference between both groups regarding the outcome nausea/vomiting (OR = 3.00, CI95 = 0.49 to 18.45). CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences in pain relief after thoracotomy between EB and PVB. PVB showed a lower incidence of side effects with reduced frequency of urinary retention and hypotension.

Keywords

Analgesia, Epidural, Anesthesia, Epidural, Nerve Block, Pain, Postoperative, Postoperative Complications, Thoracotomy

References

Joshi GP, Bonnet F, Shah R. A systematic review of randomized trials evaluating regional techniques for postthoracotomy analgesia. Anesth Analg. 2008;107:1026-1040.

Richardson J, Sabanathan S, Shah R. Post-thoracotomy spirometric lung function: the effect of analgesia. A review. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 1999;40:445-456.

Richardson J, Sabanathan S, Jones J. A prospective, randomized comparison of preoperative and continuous balanced epidural or paravertebral bupivacaine on post-thoracotomy pain, pulmonary function, and stress responses. Br J Anaesth. 1999;83:387-392.

Liu S, Carpenter RL, Neal JM. Epidural anesthesia and analgesia: Their role in postoperative outcome. Anesthesiology. 1995;82:1474-1506.

Bimston DN, McGee JP, Liptay MJ. Continuous paravertebral extrapleural infusion for post-thoracotomy pain management. Surgery. 1999;126:650-656.

Debreceni G, Molnar Z, Szelig L. Continuous epidural or intercostal analgesia following thoracotomy: a prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2003;47:1091-1095.

Gulbahar G, Kocer B, Muratli SN. A comparison of epidural and paravertebral catheterisation techniques in post-thoracotomy pain management. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010;37:467-472.

Matthews PJ, Govenden V. Comparison of continuous paravertebral and extradural infusions of bupivacaine for pain relief after thoracotomy. Br J Anaesth. 1989;62:204-205.

Davies RG, Myles PS, Graham JM. A comparison of the analgesic efficacy and side-effects of paravertebral vs epidural blockade for thoracotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Br J Anaesth. 2006;96:418-426.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339.

Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1-12.

Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32:1008-1015.

Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5.

Mitchell M. Engauge Digitizer 4.1. 2002. .

Collaboration TC. RevMan for MacOs X version 5.1.4.. .

Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557-560.

Borenstein M HL, Rothstein H. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. 2007.

Erdfelder E, Faul F, Buchner A. Gpower: a general power analysis program. 1996.

Kaiser AM, Zollinger A, De Lorenzi D. Prospective, randomized comparison of extrapleural versus epidural analgesia for postthoracotomy pain. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66:367-372.

Perttunen K, Nilsson E, Heinonen J. Extradural, paravertebral, and intercostal nerve blocks for post-thoracotomy pain. Br J Anaesth. 1995;75:541-547.

Casati A, Alessandrini P, Nuzzi M. A prospective, randomized, blinded comparison between continuous thoracic paravertebral and epidural infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine after lung resection surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2006;23:999-1004.

Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1988.

. .

Lan X, Zhang MM, Pu CL. Impact of human leukocyte antigen mismatching on outcomes of liver transplantation: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16:3457-3464.

5dd3f6410e8825ac71c63493 rba Articles
Links & Downloads
2352-2291 (Electronic) 0104-0014 (Printed)
Braz J Anesthesiol ©2024 All rights reserved.

Braz J Anesthesiol

Share this page
Page Sections