Erschienen in:
07.09.2023 | Review
The Efficacy of Intercostal Nerve Block in the Management of Postoperative Pain After Costal Cartilage Harvest for Craniofacial Reconstruction Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
verfasst von:
Nawaf Alhindi, Muna F. Alnaim, Ziyad Tarek Almalki, Ahmed Samir Moamina, Ahmed Sulaiman Alsaedi, Basma Bamakhrama, Khalid Arab
Erschienen in:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
|
Ausgabe 5/2024
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
Abstract
Introduction
Autologous costal cartilage harvest is a common procedure in craniofacial reconstruction due to its stability, dependability, and diversity. However, such a procedure is associated with severe donor-site pain postoperatively. Therefore, we aim through this study to compare the efficacy of intercostal nerve block in the management of postoperative pain in patients undergoing costal cartilage harvest for craniofacial reconstruction.
Method
This systematic review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The study systematically reviewed MEDLINE, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases without time-limitation.
Results
As a result of reviewing the literature, 33 articles were screened by full-text resulting in 14 articles which met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. However, only four high-quality RCT articles were included in the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). The findings of this study suggest that there is no significant difference in pain scores between ICNB and control groups at 12, 24, and 48 h postoperatively, both at rest and with coughing. Therefore, both techniques are considered safe and effective.
Conclusion
Our results show evidence of favorable outcome of preventive donor-site analgesia with ICNB for harvesting autologous costal cartilage in multiple studies. However, the overall outcomes were insignificant between the two arms.
No Level Assigned
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors
www.springer.com/00266