Comparison of ultrasound-guided and traditional localisation in intraspinal anesthesia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract

ObjectivesThe optimal puncture technique for neuraxial anaesthesia in different populations is unclear. We sought to obtain data from randomised controlled trials comparing the impact of ultrasound-guided technology and traditional positioning technology on the success rate of neuraxial anaesthesia.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis using study populations, interventions, intervention comparisons, outcome measures and study types.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of science were searched until 31 September 2022.Eligibility criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials comparing three types of neuraxial anaesthesia: ultrasound-assisted, ultrasound real-time guidance and conventional positioning to describe which neuraxial anaesthesia modality is best for patients and to recommend the appropriate one for different populations.Data extraction and synthesisFive independent reviewers retrieved, screened and edited included studies using standardised methods. Assess risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration and Evidence Project tools. Network meta-analysis was performed using STATA V.15 statistical software.ResultsTwenty-two studies containing three different interventions were included. The SUCRA values of first-pass success rates for the three neuraxial anaesthesia methods were real-time guidance (82.8%), ultrasound-assisted (67.1%) and traditional positioning (0.1%). Both ultrasound techniques improved first-pass success rates compared with traditional localization, but there was no significant difference between the two. Subgroup analysis showed that the use of real-time ultrasound guidance for neuraxial anaesthesia in pregnant and patients with obesity improved first-pass success rates. Ultrasound-assisted technology can improve first-attempt success rates in older patients with abnormal lumbar spine anatomy.ConclusionCompared with conventional positioning, ultrasound guidance technology can improve the first-pass success rate of neuraxial anaesthesia, but there is no significant difference between ultrasound-assisted and real-time guidance technology. The results of subgroup analysis tell us that the most suitable neuraxial anaesthesia method is different for different groups of people.PROSPERO registration numberPROSPERO number: CRD42022376041.

Anesthesia Techniques: A Breakdown Of General, Regional, And Local Methods

“…Integrating regional anesthesia into ERAS protocols requires a multidisciplinary approach involving collaboration among surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses, physical therapists, and other members of the perioperative team. By tailoring anesthesia and analgesic regimens to individual patient characteristics, surgical procedures, and recovery goals, clinicians can optimize the effectiveness of ERAS protocols and maximize the benefits of regional anesthesia in enhancing postoperative recovery (13,14).…”

“…Novel drug delivery systems, such as liposomal injections, polymeric microspheres, and hydrogels, offer targeted and controlled release of local anesthetic agents, allowing for site-specific pain relief and minimizing systemic side effects. Adjuvants like vasoconstrictors, opioids, alpha-2 agonists, and NMDA receptor antagonists are increasingly used to enhance pain relief efficacy and duration while minimizing systemic toxicity (10)(11)(12)(13)(14). Advances in pharmacogenomics hold promise for personalized pain management strategies, allowing clinicians to tailor anesthesia regimens based on individual genetic variations in drug metabolism and response.…”