Background
Efficient pain control is essential in reconstructive surgeries, particularly in procedures involving the harvest of costal cartilage. This study examines and compares different pain relief treatments using a network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the most effective techniques for managing pain.
Methods
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) by scanning several databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and Weipu till March 18, 2024. The review analyzed randomized controlled trials and observational studies that evaluated the effectiveness of local anesthetics and multimodal analgesia techniques in treating postoperative pain following costal cartilage harvest. Primary outcomes were pain scores at 6-, 12-, 24-, and 48-h post-surgery, while secondary outcomes included the need for rescue analgesia and opioid-related adverse effects.
Results
Fourteen studies involving 935 participants were included. The analysis revealed that multimodal strategies, particularly ‘Methylene Blue and Ropivacaine Intercostal Nerve Block (MB & Ropivacaine ICNB) combined with Patient-Controlled Analgesia (PCA),’ were the most effective techniques to reduce pain scores across 6, 24, and 48-h time points. “Pre-operation SAPB & PSB + PCA” was most effective in reducing pain score at 12h and significantly decreased the need for rescue analgesia and opioid-related adverse effects. In contrast, traditional ICNB with single drug consistently showed the least efficacy.
Conclusion
The results of our study strongly support the use of multimodal analgesic techniques instead of typical single medication ICNB for managing postoperative pain after costal cartilage harvest. These strategies not only provide superior pain control but also contribute to reducing the dependency on opioids, aligning with current clinical priorities to enhance recovery and minimize opioid-related risks.
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.
