Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Clin Cases. Feb 26, 2022; 10(6): 1852-1862
Published online Feb 26, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i6.1852
Table 1 Details of included studies
Ref.
Yr
Study location
Surgery type
Sample size
Age (yr)
Common protocol for PVB
Opioid added to PVB in intervention group)
Drug added to PVB in control group
Post-operative analgesics used
Study
Control
Mostafa et al[21]2018EgyptMRM or breast conservation surgery with axillary node dissection202018-78Nalbuphine 10 mgPVB at the level of T4 with bupivacaine 0.5% 0.3 mL/kgNo drugTramadol as PCA
Pushparajan et al[22]2017IndiaMRM202018-60Fentanyl 2 μg/mL at 0.1 mL/kg/h for 24 hContinuous PVB at the level of T4 with 0.2% ropivacaine for 24 h No drugFentanyl as PCA. Paracetamol or tramadol or fentanyl for breakthrough pain
Morsy et al[23]2017EgyptMRM1515NRMorphine 2 mgPVB at the level of T3 with 20 mL of bupivacaine 0.25%No drugMeperidine for breakthrough pain
Bhuvaneshwari et al[24]2012IndiaTotal mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection1212Study: 49.1 ± 7.1; Control: 50.7 ± 11Fentanyl 2 μg/mLPVB at the level of T3 with bupivacaine 0.25% and epinephrine 5 μg/mLNo drugMorphine for breakthrough pain
Omar et al[25]2011EgyptMRM1920Study: 47.5 ± 9.3; Control: 49.3 ± 10.5Tramadol 1.5 mg/kg (maximum of 150 mg)PVB at the level of T1 (1/3rd of the dose) and T4 (2/3rd of the dose) with bupivacaine 0.5% 2 mg/kgNo drugFentanyl as PCA. Paracetamol 1 g thrice daily and ibuprofen 400-600 mg thrice daily
Burlacu et al[26]2006IrelandWide local excisions (at least one breast quadrant), mastectomies, and mastectomies with reconstruction1313Study: 54 ± NR; Control: 51 ± NRFentanyl 50 μg with bolus followed by 4 μg/mL infusionContinuous PVB at the level of T3 with initial bolus of 19 mL levobupivacaine 0.25% followed by continuous infusion of 0.1% solution for 24 hSalineMorphine as PCA
Table 2 Outcomes reported by included studies
Ref.
Outcome
Results
Mostafa et al[21]Time to first analgesic requestSignificantly longer in the opioid group
Post-operative analgesic timeSignificantly longer in the opioid group
24 h total analgesic consumptionSignificantly lower in the opioid group
Pain scores up to 24 hSignificantly lower in the opioid group
HR, SBP, DBPNo difference between the two groups
Ramsay sedation scoresPatients in the control group were more agitated then opioid group in the first four hours after the operation. No difference between the two groups after four hours
Pushparajan et al[22]Pain scores up to dischargeSignificantly lower scores in the opioid group only at 24 h and not at other time periods
24 h total analgesic consumptionNo difference between the two groups
PONVNo difference between the two groups
Urinary retention, pruritisNo difference between the two groups
Patient satisfactionNo difference between the two groups
Morsy et al[23]24 h total analgesic consumptionNo difference between the two groups
Time to first analgesic requestNo difference between the two groups
Ramsay sedation scoresNo difference between the two groups
PONVNo difference between the two groups
HR, SBP, DBPNo difference between the two groups
Bhuvaneshwari et al[24]Time to first analgesic requestSignificantly longer in the opioid group
24 h total analgesic consumptionSignificantly lower in the opioid group
Cumulative pain scores at 24 hSignificantly lower in the opioid group
PONVNo difference between the two groups
Patient satisfactionSignificantly higher in the opioid group
Omar et al[25]Time to first analgesic requestNo difference between the two groups
24 h total analgesic consumptionNo difference between the two groups
Pain scores up to 24 hNo difference between the two groups
PONVNo difference between the two groups
Burlacu et al[26]Total analgesic consumptionSignificantly lower in the opioid group
Pain scores up to 24 hNo difference between the two groups
Nausea scoresSignificantly higher in the opioid group
SBPNo difference between the two groups
Patient satisfactionSignificantly higher in the opioid group
Table 3 Risk of bias in included studies
Ref.
Random sequence generation
Allocation concealment
Blinding of participants and personnel
Blinding of outcome assessment
Incomplete outcome data
Selective reporting
Other bias
Mostafa et al[21]Low riskLow riskLow riskLow riskLow riskHigh riskLow risk
Pushparajan et al[22]Low riskUnclear riskLow riskLow riskLow riskLow riskLow risk
Morsy et al[23]Unclear riskUnclear riskUnclear riskUnclear riskLow riskLow riskLow risk
Bhuvaneshwari et al[24]Low riskUnclear riskLow riskLow riskLow riskLow riskLow risk
Omar et al[25]Low riskUnclear riskLow riskLow riskLow riskLow riskLow risk
Burlacu et al[26]Low riskLow riskLow riskLow riskLow riskLow riskLow risk