| Literature DB >> 30620730 |
Donghang Zhang1, Cheng Zhou2, Dang Wei3, Long Ge3, Qian Li1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the analgesic efficacy of dexamethasone added to local anesthetics in ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block for the patients after abdominal surgery.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30620730 PMCID: PMC6324803 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209646
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1The flow diagram of study selection.
Characteristics of included trials.
| Study | Group | Treatment | Surgery | Anesthesia | Postoperative analgesia | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Akkaya | Control | After the surgery | Caesarean | Spinal | Tramadol 50 mg IV if | TFA, pain scores, total analgesic consumption, PONV |
| Ammar | Control | After the induction Bilateral 20 mL of bupivacaine hydrochloride 0.25% and 2 mL saline 0.9% or 2 mL dexamethasone (8 mg) | Abdominal hysterectomy | General anesthesia | Acetaminophen 1 g IV every 6 h during first 24 h after surgery, PCA morphine bolus 1 mg IV if needed. | TFA, pain scores, morphine consumption, PONV |
| Deshpande | Control | At the end of surgery | Abdominal Hysterectomy | Spinal anesthesia | Tramadol 1 mg/kg IV on patient's demand or when VAS >4. | TFA, total analgesic consumption, PONV |
| Huang | Control | After the induction | Laparoscopic cholecystectomy | General anesthesia | Parecoxib 40 mg IV before entering PACU, 20–40 mg at 6–12 hours intervals if needed, sufentanil 5–10 μg IV when VAS score≥4 | TFA, pain scores, total analgesic consumption, and adverse effects. |
| Kartalov | Control | After the induction | Open inguinal hernia repair | General anesthesia | Paracetamol 1g IV every 6 hours, morphine 0.05 mg/kg IV if VAS > 3 and if paracetamol had been administered less than 6 hours before. | Pain scores, the total morphine consumption |
| Wegner | Control | Immediately following surgery | Inguinal hernia | General anesthesia | No details provided | Pain scores, |
| El Sharnouby | Control | At the end of surgery | laparoscopic vertical banded gastroplasty | General anesthesia | Paracetamol 1g IV every 6h during first 24 h after surgery, meperidine hydrochloride (50 mg) IV if needed. | TFA, pain scores, total analgesic consumption, PONV |
| Sachdeva 2016 | Control | At the end of surgery | Cesarean section | Spinal anesthesia | Tramadol 100 mg IV If VAS >3 even after 30min of receiving diclofenac1.5 mg/kg. | TFA, analgesic consumption, PONV |
| Sharma | Control | After the surgery | Inguinal hernia | Spinal anesthesia | Tramadol 2mg/kg IV if VAS>4 or on patient's demand | TFA, pain scores, total analgesic consumption, PONV |
TAP = transversus abdominis plane; VAS = visual analog scale; PCA = patient controlled analgesia; IV = intravenous; TFA = the time to the first request for additional analgesics; PONV = postoperative nausea and vomiting.
Risk of bias of included trials.
| Study | Random | Allocation | Blinding of | Blinding of | Incomplete | Selective |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Akkaya,2014 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Ammar,2012 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Deshpande,2017 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Huang,2016 | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Kartalov,2015 | Unclear | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Wegner,2017 | Low | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Low | Low |
| El Sharnouby,2015 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Sachdeva,2016 | Low | Low | Low | Unclear | Low | Low |
| Sharma,2018 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Low = low risk of bias; Unclear = unclear risk of bias
Pain scores (VAS) at rest at 5 different time points after surgery for the comparison of dexamethasone and control.
| Time points | Studies, n | Patients, n | MD (95% CI) | p value | I2 test, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 h | 4 | 222 | -0.64(-1.35, 0.08) | 0.08 | 97 |
| 4 h | 4 | 222 | -1.01(-1.29, -0.73) | <0.00001 | 16 |
| 6 h | 4 | 220 | -1.21(-1.74, -0.69) | <0.00001 | 71 |
| 12 h | 6 | 344 | -0.79(-0.97, -0.60) | <0.00001 | 0 |
| 24 h | 6 | 344 | -0.41(-0.91, 0.09) | 0.11 | 84 |
MD = mean difference; CI = confidence interval; VAS = visual analogue scale.
Fig 2Meta-analysis of TFA.
TFA = the time to the first request for additional analgesics.
Fig 3Meta-analysis of morphine consumption over 24 h after surgery.
Fig 4Meta-analysis of the incidence of PONV over 24 h after surgery.
PONV = postoperative nausea and vomiting.
Summary of findings.
| Outcomes | Number of patients | Quality of evidence | Relative effect | Anticipated absolute effects | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk with placebo | Risk difference with outcomes | ||||
| VAS 2h at rest | 222 | ⨁⨁◯◯ | - | The mean VAS 2h at rest was | MD |
| VAS 4h at rest | 222 | ⨁⨁⨁◯ | - | The mean VAS 4h at rest was | MD |
| VAS 6h at rest | 220 | ⨁⨁◯◯ | - | The mean VAS 6h at rest was | MD |
| VAS 12h at rest | 344 | ⨁⨁⨁◯ | - | The mean VAS 12h at rest was | MD |
| VAS 24h at rest | 344 | ⨁⨁⨁◯ | - | The mean VAS 24h at rest was | MD |
| VAS 2h on movement | 60 | ⨁⨁⨁◯ | - | The mean VAS 2h on movement was | MD |
| VAS 4h on movement | 60 | ⨁⨁⨁◯ | - | The mean VAS 4h on movement was | MD |
| VAS 12h on movement | 60 | ⨁⨁⨁◯ | - | The mean VAS 12h on movement was | MD |
| VAS 24h on movement | 60 | ⨁⨁⨁◯ | - | The mean VAS 24h on movement was | MD |
| TFA | 433 | ⨁⨁⨁◯ | - | The mean TFA was | MD |
| morphine consumption | 352 | ⨁⨁◯◯ | - | The mean morphine consumption was | MD |
| nausea and vomiting | 515 | ⨁⨁⨁⨁ | 250 per 1,000 | ||
a. There is evidently statistical heterogeneity among the included studies.
b. The sample size is less than optimal information sample size.
c. The 95% confident interval of pooled effect estimate is large which includes the point of equal effect.
The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect