Abstract BACKGROUND Breast surgery is frequently associated with significant acute postoperative pain, necessitating effective pain management strategies. Both thoracic paravertebral block (PVB) and interpectoral plane and pectoserratus plane (IP+PS) blocks have been used to relieve pain after breast surgery. OBJECTIVE In this systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis, we aimed to identify the optimal analgesic technique for achieving effective pain relief in breast surgery. The primary outcome of this study was postoperative opioid consumption expressed as morphine milligram equivalent (MME) at 24 h. Secondary outcomes included resting and movement pain scores at 0, 6, 12 and 24 h, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and rescue analgesic requirements within the first 24 h. DESIGN A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis (TSA). DATA SEARCH We systematically searched Pubmed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Google Scholar, Medline (from inception to until 1 October 2024). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA RCTs that include patients undergoing breast surgery with PVB or IP+PS block, with no language restriction. RESULTS Eighteen RCTs with 924 patients were included. No significant difference in MME consumption at 24 h was observed between the two techniques; mean difference (MD) −1.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) −4.27 to 0.38, P = 0.101). Subgroup analyses revealed a minor advantage for IP+PS in patients without axillary involvement; MD −2.42 (95% CI −3.56 to −1.29, P  < 0.001), though below the threshold of clinical significance. Secondary outcomes, including pain scores, PONV incidence and rescue analgesic requirements were comparable. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) confirmed sufficient sample size, suggesting further studies may not alter conclusions. CONCLUSION PVB and IP+PS blocks offer comparable analgesic efficacy and opioid-sparing effects after breast surgery, with no meaningful differences in 24-h MME consumption, pain scores, or PONV incidence.

Paravertebral block is not superior to the interpectoral and pectoserratus plane block for patients undergoing breast surgery: An updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis / Dost, Burhan; Bugada, Dario; Karapinar, Yunus Emre; Balzani, Eleonora; Beldagli, Muzeyyen; Aviani Fulvio, Giulia; Yalin, Selcen Ozkal Yalin; Turunc, Esra; Sella, Nicolo; De Cassai, Alessandro. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY. - ISSN 0265-0215. - ELETTRONICO. - 2025/42:7(2025), pp. 637-648. [10.1097/EJA.0000000000002148]

Paravertebral block is not superior to the interpectoral and pectoserratus plane block for patients undergoing breast surgery: An updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis

Balzani, Eleonora;
2025-01-01

Abstract

Abstract BACKGROUND Breast surgery is frequently associated with significant acute postoperative pain, necessitating effective pain management strategies. Both thoracic paravertebral block (PVB) and interpectoral plane and pectoserratus plane (IP+PS) blocks have been used to relieve pain after breast surgery. OBJECTIVE In this systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis, we aimed to identify the optimal analgesic technique for achieving effective pain relief in breast surgery. The primary outcome of this study was postoperative opioid consumption expressed as morphine milligram equivalent (MME) at 24 h. Secondary outcomes included resting and movement pain scores at 0, 6, 12 and 24 h, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and rescue analgesic requirements within the first 24 h. DESIGN A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis (TSA). DATA SEARCH We systematically searched Pubmed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Google Scholar, Medline (from inception to until 1 October 2024). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA RCTs that include patients undergoing breast surgery with PVB or IP+PS block, with no language restriction. RESULTS Eighteen RCTs with 924 patients were included. No significant difference in MME consumption at 24 h was observed between the two techniques; mean difference (MD) −1.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) −4.27 to 0.38, P = 0.101). Subgroup analyses revealed a minor advantage for IP+PS in patients without axillary involvement; MD −2.42 (95% CI −3.56 to −1.29, P  < 0.001), though below the threshold of clinical significance. Secondary outcomes, including pain scores, PONV incidence and rescue analgesic requirements were comparable. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) confirmed sufficient sample size, suggesting further studies may not alter conclusions. CONCLUSION PVB and IP+PS blocks offer comparable analgesic efficacy and opioid-sparing effects after breast surgery, with no meaningful differences in 24-h MME consumption, pain scores, or PONV incidence.
2025
7
Settore MED/41 - Anestesiologia
Dost, Burhan; Bugada, Dario; Karapinar, Yunus Emre; Balzani, Eleonora; Beldagli, Muzeyyen; Aviani Fulvio, Giulia; Yalin, Selcen Ozkal Yalin; Turunc, E...espandi
Paravertebral block is not superior to the interpectoral and pectoserratus plane block for patients undergoing breast surgery: An updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis / Dost, Burhan; Bugada, Dario; Karapinar, Yunus Emre; Balzani, Eleonora; Beldagli, Muzeyyen; Aviani Fulvio, Giulia; Yalin, Selcen Ozkal Yalin; Turunc, Esra; Sella, Nicolo; De Cassai, Alessandro. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY. - ISSN 0265-0215. - ELETTRONICO. - 2025/42:7(2025), pp. 637-648. [10.1097/EJA.0000000000002148]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Paravertebral block is not superior to the interpectoral and pectoserratus plane block for patients undergoing breast surgery_An updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis.pdf

Solo gestori archivio

Descrizione: File
Tipologia: Versione editoriale (Publisher’s layout)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 3.13 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
3.13 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11572/465091
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
  • OpenAlex ND
social impact