Spinal anesthesia vs general anesthesia in gynecological laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luigi Della Corte ◽  
Antonio Mercorio ◽  
Ilaria Morra ◽  
Gaetano Riemma ◽  
Pasquale De Franciscis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Laparoscopic Treatment ◽  
Gynecological Diseases

Introduction: In the last years, spinal anesthesia (SA) has emerging as alternative to general anesthesia (GA) for the laparoscopic treatment of gynecological diseases, for better control of postoperative pain. The aim of the review is to compare the advantages of SA compared to GA. Methods: MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRSs) about women who underwent SA and GA for gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Relevant data were extracted and tabulated. Results: The primary outcomes included the evaluation of postoperative pain (described as shoulder pain), postoperative nausea and vomiting, and operative times. One hundred and eight patients were included in RCTs, 58 in NRSs. The qualitative analysis had conflicting results and for the most of parameters (hemodynamic variables, nausea and postoperative analgesic administration) no statistically significant differences were observed: in the NRSs studies, contradictory results regarding the postoperative pain in SA and GA groups were reported. Regarding the quantitative analysis, in the RCT studies, women who received SA had not significantly lower operative times (RR -4.40, 95% CI -9.32 to 0.53) and a lower incidence of vomiting (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.55); on the other hand, in the NRS studies, women who received SA had longer operative times (RR 5.05, 95% CI -0.03 to 10.14) and more episodes of vomiting (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.97) compared to those with GA: anyway, the outcomes proved to be insignificant. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests no significant advantages to using SA over GA for laparoscopic treatment of gynecological diseases.

scholarly journals Granisetron plus dexamethasone for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: A meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 904-911 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min Zhu ◽  
Chengmao Zhou ◽  
Bing Huang ◽  
Lin Ruan ◽  
Rui Liang
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Postoperative Nausea ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Laparoscopy Surgery ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Objective This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of granisetron plus dexamethasone for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Methods We searched the literature in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and CNKI. Results In total, 11 randomized controlled trials were enrolled in this analysis. The meta-analysis showed that granisetron in combination with dexamethasone was significantly more effective than granisetron alone in preventing PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopy surgery. No significant differences in adverse reactions (dizziness and headache) were found in association with dexamethasone. Conclusion Granisetron in combination with dexamethasone was significantly more effective than granisetron alone in preventing PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, with no difference in adverse reactions between the two groups. Granisetron alone or granisetron plus dexamethasone can be used to prevent PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

scholarly journals Effects of palonosetron and ondansetron on preventing nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 411-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qili Liu ◽  
Chengmao Zhou ◽  
Zeqing Bao ◽  
Yu Zhu
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Time Intervals ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Background This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery with general anesthesia. Methods We searched for randomized controlled clinical trials in PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. Results Nine studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis and showed no statistically significant difference between palonosetron and ondansetron in the prevention of PONV in the first 24 hours after surgery (relative risk [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35–1.10). Palonosetron more effectively prevented vomiting at various time intervals during the first 24 hours postoperatively than did ondansetron: 0–2 hours (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26–0.78), 2–6 hours (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.39–1.40), and 6–24 hours (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.55–2.64). No significant differences in side effects were found between palonosetron and ondansetron (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.40–1.14). Conclusion This meta-analysis demonstrated that palonosetron is not more efficacious than ondansetron in the prevention of early PONV. However, palonosetron was more efficacious than ondansetron in the prevention of vomiting after laparoscopic surgery.

scholarly journals Comparison of Postoperative Events between Spinal Anesthesia and General Anesthesia in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xian-Xue Wang ◽  
Quan Zhou ◽  
Dao-Bo Pan ◽  
Hui-Wei Deng ◽  
Ai-Guo Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Postoperative Nausea ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Urine Retention ◽  
Anesthesia Group

Background. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is usually carried out under general anesthesia. There were a few studies which have found spinal anesthesia as a safe alternative. We aimed to evaluate the postoperative events between spinal anesthesia and general anesthesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Methods. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (from inception to January 2016) for eligible studies. The primary outcome was the visual analogue scale score. Secondary outcomes included postoperative nausea and vomiting and urine retention 24 hours postoperatively. We calculated pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence interval using random- or fixed-effects models.Results. Eight trials involving 723 patients were listed. Meta-analysis showed that patients in spinal anesthesia groups have lower visual analogue scale score 24 hours postoperatively. There were significant decreases in the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in spinal anesthesia group when compared with general anesthesia group (odds ratios: 0.38, 95% confidence interval: 0.19–0.76;P=0.006) with heterogeneity accepted (I2=13%;P=0.33), while urine retention rate was increased in patients with spinal anesthesia (odds ratios: 4.95, 95% confidence interval: 1.24–19.71;P=0.02) without any heterogeneity (I2=0%;P=0.98).Conclusions. Spinal anesthesia may be associated with less postoperative pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with general anesthesia.

scholarly journals General Anesthesia Compared to Spinal Anesthesia for Patients Undergoing Lumbar Vertebral Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 102
Author(s):  
Alessandro De Cassai ◽  
Federico Geraldini ◽  
Annalisa Boscolo ◽  
Laura Pasin ◽  
Tommaso Pettenuzzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Postoperative Nausea ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Analgesic Efficacy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Lumbar Surgery ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Vertebral lumbar surgery can be performed under both general anesthesia (GA) and spinal anesthesia. A clear benefit from spinal anesthesia (SA) remains unproven. The aim of our meta-analysis was to compare the early analgesic efficacy and recovery after SA and GA in adult patients undergoing vertebral lumbar surgery. A systematic investigation with the following criteria was performed: adult patients undergoing vertebral lumbar surgery (P); single-shot SA (I); GA care with or without wound infiltration (C); analgesic efficacy measured as postoperative pain, intraoperative hypotension, bradycardia, length of surgery, blood loss, postoperative side effects (such as postoperative nausea/vomiting and urinary retention), overall patient and surgeon satisfaction, and length of hospital stay (O); and randomized controlled trials (S). The search was performed in Pubmed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar up to 1 November 2020. Eleven studies were found upon this search. SA in vertebral lumbar surgery decreases postoperative pain and the analgesic requirement in the post anesthesia care unit. It is associated with a reduced incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and a higher patient satisfaction. It has no effect on urinary retention, intraoperative bradycardia, or hypotension. SA should be considered as a viable and efficient anesthetic technique in vertebral lumbar surgery.

scholarly journals Comparison of ramosetron and ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (10) ◽  
pp. 4591-4603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yiping Li ◽  
Ruiming Deng ◽  
Juan Zhou ◽  
Yuan Chen ◽  
Aiping Ouyang
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Postoperative Nausea ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Postoperative Treatment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Objective We conducted a systematic literature search and meta-analysis to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of ramosetron versus ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV; PON and POV, respectively) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Methods The electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched up to March 2019 to identify relevant studies. Results The final pooled analysis included 6 RCTs and revealed that postoperative treatment with ramosetron at 24 to 48 hours after surgery significantly reduced the incidence of PON and POV relative to treatment with ondansetron. In a subgroup analysis, ramosetron 0.3 mg tended to reduce PON (0–2 hours) and POV (24–48 hours) more effectively than ondansetron 4 mg. However, no statistical difference was observed between ramosetron 0.3 mg and ondansetron 8 mg in terms of the reduction of PON or POV during any time interval within the first 48 hours after surgery. Conclusions Our results indicate that ramosetron 0.3 mg is superior to ondansetron 4 mg and comparable to ondansetron 8 mg for PONV prophylaxis after laparoscopic surgery.

scholarly journals The role of perioperative intravenous low-dose dexamethasone in rapid recovery after total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 030006052199822
Author(s):  
Youguang Zhuo ◽  
Rongguo Yu ◽  
Chunling Wu ◽  
Yuting Huang ◽  
Jie Ye ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Opioid Consumption ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Postoperative Rehabilitation ◽  
Total Knee

Purpose The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the overall safety and effectiveness of perioperative intravenous dexamethasone to facilitate postoperative rehabilitation in patients after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed using the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to 2020. Methodological quality of the trials was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and the relevant data were extracted using a predefined data extraction form. Results Ten RCTs with 1100 knees were included. Our study showed a significant reduction in pain using a postoperative pain visual analog scale (VAS) at 24 hours and 48 hours, total opioid consumption at 24 hours and 48 hours, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), active range of motion (ROM) limitation, and passive ROM limitation at 72 hours in dexamethasone-treated groups compared with controls. Conclusion Intravenous low-dose dexamethasone is potentially useful in the perioperative setting for reducing postsurgical immediate ROM limitations, pain, opioid consumption, and PONV. There are no data that directly attribute an increase in postoperative complications to intravenous dexamethasone. More high-quality studies are necessary to draw these conclusions.

scholarly journals Comparison of the effectiveness of sacrospinous ligament fixation and sacrocolpopexy: a meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenju Zhang ◽  
Willy Cecilia Cheon ◽  
Li Zhang ◽  
Xiaozhong Wang ◽  
Yuzhen Wei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Operative Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Surgical Approaches ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament ◽  
Gastrointestinal Complications ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation ◽  
Apical Support ◽  
Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy

Abstract Introduction and hypothesis Sacrocolpopexy and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) have been used for the restoration of apical support. Studies comparing sacrocolpopexy and SSLF have reported conflicting results. We aim to assess the current evidence regarding efficiency and the complications of sacrocolpopexy compared with SSLF. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library and performed a systematic review meta-analysis to assess the two surgical approaches. Results 5Five randomized controlled trials, 8 retrospective studies, and 2 prospective studies including 4,120 cases were identified. Compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC), SSLF was associated with a lower success rate (88.32% and 91.45%; OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.29–0.95; p = 0.03), higher recurrence (11.58% and 8.32%; OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.04–3.46; p = 0.04), and dyspareunia rate (14.36% and 4.67%; OR 3.10; 95% CI 1.28–7.50; p = 0.01). Patients in this group may benefit from shorter operative time (weighted mean difference −25.08 min; 95% CI −42.29 to −7.88; p = 0.004), lower hemorrhage rate (0.85% and 2.58%; OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25–0.85; p = 0.009), wound infection rate (3.30% and 5.76%; OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.39–0.77; p = 0.0005), and fewer gastrointestinal complications (1.33% and 6.19%; OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.15–0.76; p = 0.009). Conclusion Both sacrocolpopexy and SSLF offer an efficient alternative to the restoration of apical support. When anatomical durability and sexual function is a priority, ASC may be the preferred option. When considering factors of mesh erosion, operative time, gastrointestinal complications, hemorrhage, and wound infections, SSLF may be the better option.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Acupuncture in Management of Functional Constipation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Lu Wang ◽  
Mingmin Xu ◽  
Qianhua Zheng ◽  
Wei Zhang ◽  
Ying Li
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Safety Evaluation ◽  
Functional Constipation ◽  
Responder Rate ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Increased Risk

Objective. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for functional constipation (FC). Methods. A rigorous literature search was performed in English (PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE) and Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biological Medical (CBM), Wanfang database, and China Science and Technology Journal (VIP)) electronic databases from their inception to October 2019. Included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared acupuncture therapy with sham acupuncture or pharmacological therapies. The outcome measures were evaluated, including the primary outcome of complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) and secondary outcomes of Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS), constipation symptoms scores (CSS), responder rate, the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) questionnaire, and safety evaluation. Meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan5.3. Results. The merged data of 28 RCTs with 3525 participants indicated that acupuncture may be efficient for FC by increasing CSBMs (p<0.00001; MD = 0.84 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.03]; I2 = 0%) and improving constipation symptoms (p=0.03; SMD = −0.4 [95% CI, −0.78 to −0.03]; I2 = 74%), stool formation (p<0.00001; MD = 0.24 [95% CI, 0.15 to 0.34]; I2 = 0%), quality of life (p<0.00001; N = 1, MD = −0.33 [95% CI, −0.45 to −0.21]), and responder rates (p=0.02; RR = 2.16; [95% CI, 1.1 to 4.24]; I2 = 69%) compared with the effects of sham treatment. No increased risk of adverse events was observed (p=0.44; RR = 1.18; [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.81]; I2 = 0%). With regard to medication comparisons, the pooled data indicated that acupuncture was more effective in increasing CSBMs (p=0.004; MD = 0.53 [95% CI, 0.17 to 0.88]; I2 = 88%) and improving patients’ quality of life (p<0.00001; SMD = −0.73 [95% CI, −1.02 to −0.44]; I2 = 64%), with high heterogeneity. However, there were no significant differences in responder rate (p=0.12; RR = 1.31; [95% CI, 0.94 to 1.82]; I2 = 53%), BSFS (p=0.5; MD = 0.17 [95% CI, −0.33 to 0.68]; I2 = 93%), or CSS (p=0.05; SMD = −0.62 [95% CI, −1.23 to −0.01]; I2 = 89%). Regarding safety evaluation, acupuncture was safer than medications (p<0.0001; RR = 0.3; [95% CI, 0.18 to 0.52]; I2 = 30%). Conclusions. Current evidence suggests that acupuncture is an efficient and safe treatment for FC. Acupuncture increased stool frequency, improved stool formation, alleviated constipation symptoms, and improved quality of life. However, the evidence quality was relatively low and the relationship between acupuncture and drugs is not clear. More high-quality trials are recommended in the future. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019143347.

scholarly journals Kinesio Taping for Balance Function after Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yijuan Hu ◽  
Dongling Zhong ◽  
Qiwei Xiao ◽  
Qiang Chen ◽  
Juan Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Duration ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Clinical Effects ◽  
Balance Function ◽  
Balance Impairment ◽  
Kinesio Taping ◽  
Significant Difference

Objective. With the increasing social and economic burdens of balance impairment after stroke, the treatment for balance impairment after stroke becomes a major public health problem worldwide. Kinesio taping (KT) as a part of clinical practice has been used widely in the treatment of balance impairment after stroke. However, the clinical effects of KT for balance function have not been confirmed. The objective of this study is to investigate the effects and safety of KT for balance impairment after stroke. Methods. We conducted a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of KT for balance impairment after stroke. We searched the following databases: (1) English databases: EMBASE (via Ovid), MEDLINE (via Ovid), the Cochrane library, PubMed, and PEDro; (2) Chinese databases: China Biology Medicine (CBM), Wan Fang database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP. Besides, hand searches of relevant references were also conducted. We systematically searched from the inception to December 2018, using the keywords (Kinesio, Kinesio Tape, tape, or Orthotic Tape) and (stroke, hemiplegia, or hemiplegic paralysis) and (balance or stability). The search strategies were adjusted for each database. The reference lists of included articles were reviewed for relevant trials. For missing data, we contacted the authors to get additional information. Results. 22 RCTs involved 1331 patients, among which 667 patients in the experimental group and 664 patients in the control group were included. Results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with conventional rehabilitation (CR), there was significant difference in Berg Balance Scale (BBS) (MD=4.46, 95%CI 1.72 to 7.19, P=0.001), Time Up and Go Test (TUGT) (MD=-4.62, 95%CI -5.48 to -3.79, P < 0.00001), functional ambulation category scale (FAC) (MD=0.53, 95%CI 0.38 to 0.68, P < 0.00001), Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA-L) (MD=4.20, 95%CI 3.17 to 5.24, P < 0.00001), and Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) (MD=-0.38, 95%CI -0.49 to -0.27, P < 0.00001). The results of subgroup analysis showed that there was no significant difference between KT and CR with ≤4 weeks treatment duration (< 4 weeks: MD=5.03, 95%CI -1.80 to 11.85, P=0.15; =4 weeks: MD=4.33, 95%CI -1.50 to 10.15, P=0.15), while there was significant difference with more than 4-week treatment duration (MD=4.77, 95%CI 2.58 to 6.97, P < 0.0001). Conclusions. Based on current evidence, KT was more effective than CR for balance function, lower limb function, and walking function in poststroke patients. Longer treatment duration may be associated with better effects. However, more well-conducted RCTs are required in the future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document