Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36802255›Full record

ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2023

Acute pain management after thoracoscopic lung resection: a systematic review and explorative meta-analysis.

Louisa N Spaans, Jelle E Bousema, Patrick Meijer, R A Arthur Bouwman, Renee van den Broek, Jo Mourisse, Marcel G W Dijkgraaf, Ad F T M Verhagen, Frank J C van den Broek

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Louisa N SpaansDepartment of Surgery, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8667-3780
Jelle E BousemaDepartment of Surgery, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, Netherlands.
Patrick MeijerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, Netherlands.
R A Arthur BouwmanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
Renee van den BroekDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
Jo MourisseDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Marcel G W DijkgraafDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ad F T M VerhagenDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Frank J C van den BroekDepartment of Surgery, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

ZonMw 10140021910007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPain after thoracoscopic surgery may increase the incidence of postoperative complications and impair recovery. Guidelines lack consensus regarding postoperative analgesia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the mean pain scores of different analgesic techniques (thoracic epidural analgesia, continuous or single-shot unilateral regional analgesia and only systemic analgesia) after thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection.

methodsMedline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched until 1 October 2022. Patients undergoing at least >70% anatomical resections through thoracoscopy reporting postoperative pain scores were included. Due to a high inter-study variability an explorative meta-analysis next to an analytic meta-analysis was performed. The quality of evidence has been evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.

resultsA total of 51 studies comprising 5573 patients were included. Mean 24, 48 and 72 h pain scores with 95% confidence interval on a 0-10 scale were calculated. Length of hospital stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting, additional opioids and the use of rescue analgesia were analysed as secondary outcomes. A common-effect size was estimated with an extreme high heterogeneity for which pooling of the studies was not appropriate. An exploratory meta-analysis demonstrated acceptable mean pain scores of Numeric Rating Scale <4 for all analgesic techniques.

conclusionsThis extensive literature review and attempt to pool mean pain scores for meta-analysis demonstrates that unilateral regional analgesia is gaining popularity over thoracic epidural analgesia in thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection, despite great heterogeneity and limitations of current studies precluding such recommendations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: ID number 205311.

Indexed as

Acute postoperative painAnatomic lung resectionHealth economicsIntercostal analgesiaPain managementRegional analgesiaThoracic epidural analgesiaVideo-assisted thoracic surgery

Identifiers

PMID36802255
PMCPMC9931052
OpenAlexW4313894383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.