Ultrasound compared with nerve stimulation guidance for peripheral nerve catheter placement: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of ultrasound (US) vs nerve stimulation (NS) guidance for peripheral nerve catheter placement. This meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA statement and the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. For dichotomou...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:British journal of anaesthesia : BJA 2013-10, Vol.111 (4), p.564-572
Hauptverfasser: Schnabel, A, Meyer-Frießem, C.H., Zahn, P.K., Pogatzki-Zahn, E.M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 572
container_issue 4
container_start_page 564
container_title British journal of anaesthesia : BJA
container_volume 111
creator Schnabel, A
Meyer-Frießem, C.H.
Zahn, P.K.
Pogatzki-Zahn, E.M.
description The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of ultrasound (US) vs nerve stimulation (NS) guidance for peripheral nerve catheter placement. This meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA statement and the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. For dichotomous outcomes relative risks [RRs; 95% confidence intervals (CIs)] were calculated, while for continuous outcomes, mean differences (MDs; 95% CI) were calculated. All statistical analyses were performed using the Revman® statistical software (Version 5.1). Fifteen randomized controlled trials including 977 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Peripheral nerve catheters placed under US guidance showed a higher RR of 1.14 (95% CI: 1.02–1.27; P=0.02) for an overall successful block in comparison with NS. However, postoperative pain scales at movement (numeric rating scale: 0–10) were comparable between US- vs NS-guided peripheral nerve catheters 24 (MD: 0.08; 95% CI: −0.77 to 0.94; P=0.85) and 48 (MD: 1.0; 95% CI: −0.3 to 2.3; P=0.13) h after surgery. Patients receiving a US-guided peripheral nerve catheter had a lower RR of 0.13 (95% CI: 0.04–0.38; P=0.0002) for an accidental vascular puncture. There is evidence that US-guided peripheral nerve catheters show a higher success rate and a lower risk for an accidental vascular puncture compared with NS guidance. However, this difference resulted only in marginally lower postoperative pain scores at rest. Nevertheless, these results were influenced by heterogeneity and should be interpreted with caution.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/bja/aet196
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1432615168</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0007091217323486</els_id><sourcerecordid>1432615168</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-7f741a132451564f16be2b37ce13b5df785f8f09e504935bb3a5e39475065be93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkMFqFTEUhoMo9lrd-ACSpQhjk0kyueNOitpCwY1dhzOZE29KJhmTTKU-gw9tyr26cvUfOB__4XyEvObsPWejuJju4AKw8nF4QnZcat4NWvOnZMcY0x0beX9GXpRyxxjX_aiek7NeaMmY7Hfk922oGUra4kxtWlbIONOfvh5oxHyPtFS_bAGqT5F-3_wM0SJ1KdMVs18PmCGcSAv1gBXbJoDFBWP9QIEuWKGDCOGh-EKToxninBb_Cx_vxZpTCG2s2UMoL8kz1wJfnfKc3H7-9O3yqrv5-uX68uNNZ8Wwr512WnLgopeKq0E6PkzYT0Jb5GJSs9N75faOjaiYHIWaJgEKxSi1YoOacBTn5O2xd83px4almsUXiyFAxLQVw6XoB674sG_ouyNqcyolozNr9gvkB8OZebRvmn1ztN_gN6febVpw_of-1d0AeQSwfXfvMZtiPTals89oq5mT_1_vH8yelmg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1432615168</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ultrasound compared with nerve stimulation guidance for peripheral nerve catheter placement: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Schnabel, A ; Meyer-Frießem, C.H. ; Zahn, P.K. ; Pogatzki-Zahn, E.M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Schnabel, A ; Meyer-Frießem, C.H. ; Zahn, P.K. ; Pogatzki-Zahn, E.M.</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of ultrasound (US) vs nerve stimulation (NS) guidance for peripheral nerve catheter placement. This meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA statement and the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. For dichotomous outcomes relative risks [RRs; 95% confidence intervals (CIs)] were calculated, while for continuous outcomes, mean differences (MDs; 95% CI) were calculated. All statistical analyses were performed using the Revman® statistical software (Version 5.1). Fifteen randomized controlled trials including 977 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Peripheral nerve catheters placed under US guidance showed a higher RR of 1.14 (95% CI: 1.02–1.27; P=0.02) for an overall successful block in comparison with NS. However, postoperative pain scales at movement (numeric rating scale: 0–10) were comparable between US- vs NS-guided peripheral nerve catheters 24 (MD: 0.08; 95% CI: −0.77 to 0.94; P=0.85) and 48 (MD: 1.0; 95% CI: −0.3 to 2.3; P=0.13) h after surgery. Patients receiving a US-guided peripheral nerve catheter had a lower RR of 0.13 (95% CI: 0.04–0.38; P=0.0002) for an accidental vascular puncture. There is evidence that US-guided peripheral nerve catheters show a higher success rate and a lower risk for an accidental vascular puncture compared with NS guidance. However, this difference resulted only in marginally lower postoperative pain scores at rest. Nevertheless, these results were influenced by heterogeneity and should be interpreted with caution.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-0912</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-6771</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/bja/aet196</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23740042</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>acute pain, regional techniques ; anaesthetic techniques, regional ; Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects ; Catheterization, Peripheral - methods ; Electric Stimulation - methods ; Humans ; Nerve Block - adverse effects ; Nerve Block - methods ; Pain, Postoperative - prevention &amp; control ; Peripheral Nerves - diagnostic imaging ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; regional anaesthesia ; Ultrasonography, Interventional - methods</subject><ispartof>British journal of anaesthesia : BJA, 2013-10, Vol.111 (4), p.564-572</ispartof><rights>2013 The Author(s)</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-7f741a132451564f16be2b37ce13b5df785f8f09e504935bb3a5e39475065be93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-7f741a132451564f16be2b37ce13b5df785f8f09e504935bb3a5e39475065be93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23740042$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schnabel, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meyer-Frießem, C.H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zahn, P.K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pogatzki-Zahn, E.M.</creatorcontrib><title>Ultrasound compared with nerve stimulation guidance for peripheral nerve catheter placement: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</title><title>British journal of anaesthesia : BJA</title><addtitle>Br J Anaesth</addtitle><description>The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of ultrasound (US) vs nerve stimulation (NS) guidance for peripheral nerve catheter placement. This meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA statement and the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. For dichotomous outcomes relative risks [RRs; 95% confidence intervals (CIs)] were calculated, while for continuous outcomes, mean differences (MDs; 95% CI) were calculated. All statistical analyses were performed using the Revman® statistical software (Version 5.1). Fifteen randomized controlled trials including 977 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Peripheral nerve catheters placed under US guidance showed a higher RR of 1.14 (95% CI: 1.02–1.27; P=0.02) for an overall successful block in comparison with NS. However, postoperative pain scales at movement (numeric rating scale: 0–10) were comparable between US- vs NS-guided peripheral nerve catheters 24 (MD: 0.08; 95% CI: −0.77 to 0.94; P=0.85) and 48 (MD: 1.0; 95% CI: −0.3 to 2.3; P=0.13) h after surgery. Patients receiving a US-guided peripheral nerve catheter had a lower RR of 0.13 (95% CI: 0.04–0.38; P=0.0002) for an accidental vascular puncture. There is evidence that US-guided peripheral nerve catheters show a higher success rate and a lower risk for an accidental vascular puncture compared with NS guidance. However, this difference resulted only in marginally lower postoperative pain scores at rest. Nevertheless, these results were influenced by heterogeneity and should be interpreted with caution.</description><subject>acute pain, regional techniques</subject><subject>anaesthetic techniques, regional</subject><subject>Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects</subject><subject>Catheterization, Peripheral - methods</subject><subject>Electric Stimulation - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Nerve Block - adverse effects</subject><subject>Nerve Block - methods</subject><subject>Pain, Postoperative - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Peripheral Nerves - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>regional anaesthesia</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Interventional - methods</subject><issn>0007-0912</issn><issn>1471-6771</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNptkMFqFTEUhoMo9lrd-ACSpQhjk0kyueNOitpCwY1dhzOZE29KJhmTTKU-gw9tyr26cvUfOB__4XyEvObsPWejuJju4AKw8nF4QnZcat4NWvOnZMcY0x0beX9GXpRyxxjX_aiek7NeaMmY7Hfk922oGUra4kxtWlbIONOfvh5oxHyPtFS_bAGqT5F-3_wM0SJ1KdMVs18PmCGcSAv1gBXbJoDFBWP9QIEuWKGDCOGh-EKToxninBb_Cx_vxZpTCG2s2UMoL8kz1wJfnfKc3H7-9O3yqrv5-uX68uNNZ8Wwr512WnLgopeKq0E6PkzYT0Jb5GJSs9N75faOjaiYHIWaJgEKxSi1YoOacBTn5O2xd83px4almsUXiyFAxLQVw6XoB674sG_ouyNqcyolozNr9gvkB8OZebRvmn1ztN_gN6febVpw_of-1d0AeQSwfXfvMZtiPTals89oq5mT_1_vH8yelmg</recordid><startdate>20131001</startdate><enddate>20131001</enddate><creator>Schnabel, A</creator><creator>Meyer-Frießem, C.H.</creator><creator>Zahn, P.K.</creator><creator>Pogatzki-Zahn, E.M.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131001</creationdate><title>Ultrasound compared with nerve stimulation guidance for peripheral nerve catheter placement: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</title><author>Schnabel, A ; Meyer-Frießem, C.H. ; Zahn, P.K. ; Pogatzki-Zahn, E.M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-7f741a132451564f16be2b37ce13b5df785f8f09e504935bb3a5e39475065be93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>acute pain, regional techniques</topic><topic>anaesthetic techniques, regional</topic><topic>Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects</topic><topic>Catheterization, Peripheral - methods</topic><topic>Electric Stimulation - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Nerve Block - adverse effects</topic><topic>Nerve Block - methods</topic><topic>Pain, Postoperative - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Peripheral Nerves - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>regional anaesthesia</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Interventional - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schnabel, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meyer-Frießem, C.H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zahn, P.K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pogatzki-Zahn, E.M.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>British journal of anaesthesia : BJA</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schnabel, A</au><au>Meyer-Frießem, C.H.</au><au>Zahn, P.K.</au><au>Pogatzki-Zahn, E.M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ultrasound compared with nerve stimulation guidance for peripheral nerve catheter placement: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</atitle><jtitle>British journal of anaesthesia : BJA</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Anaesth</addtitle><date>2013-10-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>111</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>564</spage><epage>572</epage><pages>564-572</pages><issn>0007-0912</issn><eissn>1471-6771</eissn><abstract>The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of ultrasound (US) vs nerve stimulation (NS) guidance for peripheral nerve catheter placement. This meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA statement and the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. For dichotomous outcomes relative risks [RRs; 95% confidence intervals (CIs)] were calculated, while for continuous outcomes, mean differences (MDs; 95% CI) were calculated. All statistical analyses were performed using the Revman® statistical software (Version 5.1). Fifteen randomized controlled trials including 977 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Peripheral nerve catheters placed under US guidance showed a higher RR of 1.14 (95% CI: 1.02–1.27; P=0.02) for an overall successful block in comparison with NS. However, postoperative pain scales at movement (numeric rating scale: 0–10) were comparable between US- vs NS-guided peripheral nerve catheters 24 (MD: 0.08; 95% CI: −0.77 to 0.94; P=0.85) and 48 (MD: 1.0; 95% CI: −0.3 to 2.3; P=0.13) h after surgery. Patients receiving a US-guided peripheral nerve catheter had a lower RR of 0.13 (95% CI: 0.04–0.38; P=0.0002) for an accidental vascular puncture. There is evidence that US-guided peripheral nerve catheters show a higher success rate and a lower risk for an accidental vascular puncture compared with NS guidance. However, this difference resulted only in marginally lower postoperative pain scores at rest. Nevertheless, these results were influenced by heterogeneity and should be interpreted with caution.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>23740042</pmid><doi>10.1093/bja/aet196</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0007-0912
ispartof British journal of anaesthesia : BJA, 2013-10, Vol.111 (4), p.564-572
issn 0007-0912
1471-6771
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1432615168
source MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects acute pain, regional techniques
anaesthetic techniques, regional
Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects
Catheterization, Peripheral - methods
Electric Stimulation - methods
Humans
Nerve Block - adverse effects
Nerve Block - methods
Pain, Postoperative - prevention & control
Peripheral Nerves - diagnostic imaging
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
regional anaesthesia
Ultrasonography, Interventional - methods
title Ultrasound compared with nerve stimulation guidance for peripheral nerve catheter placement: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T01%3A14%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ultrasound%20compared%20with%20nerve%20stimulation%20guidance%20for%20peripheral%20nerve%20catheter%20placement:%20a%20meta-analysis%20of%20randomized%20controlled%20trials&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20anaesthesia%20:%20BJA&rft.au=Schnabel,%20A&rft.date=2013-10-01&rft.volume=111&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=564&rft.epage=572&rft.pages=564-572&rft.issn=0007-0912&rft.eissn=1471-6771&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/bja/aet196&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1432615168%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1432615168&rft_id=info:pmid/23740042&rft_els_id=S0007091217323486&rfr_iscdi=true