已收录 268921 条政策
 政策提纲
  • 暂无提纲
Comparison of patient-controlled epidural analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia after spinal fusion surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
[摘要] BackgroundThe objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) in postoperative analgesia of spinal fusion surgery.MethodsPotential academic articles were identified from the Cochrane Library, Medline (1966–2015.5), PubMed (1966–2015.5), Embase (1980–2015.5) and ScienceDirect (1966–2015.5). Gray studies were identified from the references of the included literature. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving PCEA and PCIA after spinal fusion were included. Two independent reviewers performed independent data abstraction. I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. Fixed or random effects model was used for meta-analysis.ResultsEight RCTs met the inclusion criteria. There was a better analgesic effect in patients with PCEA for postoperative VAS on the first day (P = 0.0005) and second day (P = 0.006). The patients with PCEA had a higher incidence of pruritus (P = 0.02) and paresthesia (P = 0.03) after surgery than those with PCIA. There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative VAS on the third day (P = 0.15), nausea (P = 0.74) or emesis (P = 0.37) between the two groups.ConclusionsAfter spinal fusion, the patients with PCEA have similar analgesic efficacy during the three postoperative days and a higher incidence of pruritus and paresthesia than those with PCIA. Due to the limited quality and data of the evidence currently available, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are required.
[发布日期] 2015-12-15 [发布机构] 
[效力级别]  [学科分类] 
[关键词] Epidural analgesia;Intravenous analgesia;Spinal fusion;Randomized controlled trial;Meta-analysis [时效性] 
   浏览次数:1      统一登录查看全文      激活码登录查看全文