Neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery: systematic review

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Barbosa, Fabiano Timbó
Publication Date: 2013
Other Authors: Castro, Aldemar Araújo
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: São Paulo medical journal (Online)
Download full: https://periodicosapm.emnuvens.com.br/spmj/article/view/1299
Summary: CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Choosing the best anesthetic technique for urological surgery with the aim of mortality reduction remains controversial. The objective here was to compare the effectiveness and safety of neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review, Universidade Federal de Alagoas. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2012), Medline via PubMed (1966 to October 2012), Lilacs (1982 to October 2012), SciELO and EMBASE (1974 to October 2012). The reference lists of the studies included and of one systematic review in the same field were also analyzed. The studies included were randomized controlled trials (RCT) that analyzed neuraxial anesthesia and general anesthesia for urological surgery. RESULTS: The titles and abstracts of 2720 articles were analyzed. Among these, 16 studies were identified and 11 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. One RCT was published twice. The study validity was: Jadad score > 3 in one RCT; seven RCTs with unclear risk of bias as the most common response; and five RCTs not fulfilling half of the Delphi list items. The frequency of mortality was not significant between study groups in three RCTs. Meta-analysis was not performed. CONCLUSION: At the moment, the evidence available cannot prove that neuraxial anesthesia is more effective and safer than general anesthesia for urological surgery. There were insufficient data to pool the results relating to mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, length of hospitalization, quality of life, degree of satisfaction, postoperative cognitive dysfunction and blood transfusion requirements.
id APM-1_faa9cf0f765a56a39d7e1a0a6bbef6c0
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.diagnosticoetratamento.emnuvens.com.br:article/1299
network_acronym_str APM-1
network_name_str São Paulo medical journal (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery: systematic reviewAnestesia neuroaxial versus anestesia geral para cirurgias urológicas: revisão sistemáticaMortalidadeAnestesia geralAnestesia epiduralRaquianestesiaRevisãoMortalityAnesthesia, generalAnesthesia, epiduralAnesthesia, spinalReview [publication type]CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Choosing the best anesthetic technique for urological surgery with the aim of mortality reduction remains controversial. The objective here was to compare the effectiveness and safety of neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review, Universidade Federal de Alagoas. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2012), Medline via PubMed (1966 to October 2012), Lilacs (1982 to October 2012), SciELO and EMBASE (1974 to October 2012). The reference lists of the studies included and of one systematic review in the same field were also analyzed. The studies included were randomized controlled trials (RCT) that analyzed neuraxial anesthesia and general anesthesia for urological surgery. RESULTS: The titles and abstracts of 2720 articles were analyzed. Among these, 16 studies were identified and 11 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. One RCT was published twice. The study validity was: Jadad score > 3 in one RCT; seven RCTs with unclear risk of bias as the most common response; and five RCTs not fulfilling half of the Delphi list items. The frequency of mortality was not significant between study groups in three RCTs. Meta-analysis was not performed. CONCLUSION: At the moment, the evidence available cannot prove that neuraxial anesthesia is more effective and safer than general anesthesia for urological surgery. There were insufficient data to pool the results relating to mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, length of hospitalization, quality of life, degree of satisfaction, postoperative cognitive dysfunction and blood transfusion requirements.CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: A escolha da melhor técnica anestésica para cirurgias urológicas para reduzir mortalidade permanece controversa. O objetivo foi comparar a efetividade e segurança da anestesia neuroaxial versus anestesia geral para cirurgias urológicas. TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL: Revisão sistemática, Universidade Federal de Alagoas. MÉTODO: Fizemos a busca em Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials na Cochrane Library (2012, volume 10), Medline via PubMed (1966 até outubro de 2012), Lilacs (1982 até outubro de 2012), SciELO e EMBASE (1974 até outubro de 2012). As listas de referências dos estudos incluídos e de uma revisão sistemática em urologia também foram analisadas. Os estudos incluídos foram ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECR) que analisaram as anestesias neuroaxial e geral para cirurgias urológicas. RESULTADOS: Os títulos e resumos de 2.720 artigos foram analisados. Entre eles, 16 estudos foram identificados e 11 preencheram os critérios de inclusão. Um ECR foi publicado duas vezes. A validade dos estudos foi: escore de Jadad > 3 em um ECR; sete ECRs com indeterminado risco de viés como a resposta mais comum; cinco ECR sem preenchimento da metade dos itens da lista de Delphi. A frequência de mortalidade não foi significante entre os grupos de estudo em três ECR. A metanálise não foi realizada. CONCLUSÃO: Até o momento, as evidências disponíveis não puderam provar que a anestesia neuroaxial seja mais efetiva e segura do que a anestesia geral para cirurgias urológicas. Não houve dados suficientes para reunir os resultados de mortalidade, infarto cerebral, infarto do miocárdio, duração de internação hospitalar, qualidade de vida, grau de satisfação, disfunção cognitiva pós-operatória e necessidade de transfusão sanguínea.São Paulo Medical JournalSão Paulo Medical Journal2013-05-05info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicosapm.emnuvens.com.br/spmj/article/view/1299São Paulo Medical Journal; Vol. 131 No. 3 (2013); 179-186São Paulo Medical Journal; v. 131 n. 3 (2013); 179-1861806-9460reponame:São Paulo medical journal (Online)instname:Associação Paulista de Medicinainstacron:APMenghttps://periodicosapm.emnuvens.com.br/spmj/article/view/1299/1217https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessBarbosa, Fabiano TimbóCastro, Aldemar Araújo2023-08-31T16:44:01Zoai:ojs.diagnosticoetratamento.emnuvens.com.br:article/1299Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/spmjPUBhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phprevistas@apm.org.br1806-94601516-3180opendoar:2023-08-31T16:44:01São Paulo medical journal (Online) - Associação Paulista de Medicinafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery: systematic review
Anestesia neuroaxial versus anestesia geral para cirurgias urológicas: revisão sistemática
title Neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery: systematic review
spellingShingle Neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery: systematic review
Barbosa, Fabiano Timbó
Mortalidade
Anestesia geral
Anestesia epidural
Raquianestesia
Revisão
Mortality
Anesthesia, general
Anesthesia, epidural
Anesthesia, spinal
Review [publication type]
title_short Neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery: systematic review
title_full Neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery: systematic review
title_fullStr Neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery: systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery: systematic review
title_sort Neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery: systematic review
author Barbosa, Fabiano Timbó
author_facet Barbosa, Fabiano Timbó
Castro, Aldemar Araújo
author_role author
author2 Castro, Aldemar Araújo
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Barbosa, Fabiano Timbó
Castro, Aldemar Araújo
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Mortalidade
Anestesia geral
Anestesia epidural
Raquianestesia
Revisão
Mortality
Anesthesia, general
Anesthesia, epidural
Anesthesia, spinal
Review [publication type]
topic Mortalidade
Anestesia geral
Anestesia epidural
Raquianestesia
Revisão
Mortality
Anesthesia, general
Anesthesia, epidural
Anesthesia, spinal
Review [publication type]
description CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Choosing the best anesthetic technique for urological surgery with the aim of mortality reduction remains controversial. The objective here was to compare the effectiveness and safety of neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review, Universidade Federal de Alagoas. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2012), Medline via PubMed (1966 to October 2012), Lilacs (1982 to October 2012), SciELO and EMBASE (1974 to October 2012). The reference lists of the studies included and of one systematic review in the same field were also analyzed. The studies included were randomized controlled trials (RCT) that analyzed neuraxial anesthesia and general anesthesia for urological surgery. RESULTS: The titles and abstracts of 2720 articles were analyzed. Among these, 16 studies were identified and 11 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. One RCT was published twice. The study validity was: Jadad score > 3 in one RCT; seven RCTs with unclear risk of bias as the most common response; and five RCTs not fulfilling half of the Delphi list items. The frequency of mortality was not significant between study groups in three RCTs. Meta-analysis was not performed. CONCLUSION: At the moment, the evidence available cannot prove that neuraxial anesthesia is more effective and safer than general anesthesia for urological surgery. There were insufficient data to pool the results relating to mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, length of hospitalization, quality of life, degree of satisfaction, postoperative cognitive dysfunction and blood transfusion requirements.
publishDate 2013
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2013-05-05
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://periodicosapm.emnuvens.com.br/spmj/article/view/1299
url https://periodicosapm.emnuvens.com.br/spmj/article/view/1299
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://periodicosapm.emnuvens.com.br/spmj/article/view/1299/1217
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv São Paulo Medical Journal
São Paulo Medical Journal
publisher.none.fl_str_mv São Paulo Medical Journal
São Paulo Medical Journal
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv São Paulo Medical Journal; Vol. 131 No. 3 (2013); 179-186
São Paulo Medical Journal; v. 131 n. 3 (2013); 179-186
1806-9460
reponame:São Paulo medical journal (Online)
instname:Associação Paulista de Medicina
instacron:APM
instname_str Associação Paulista de Medicina
instacron_str APM
institution APM
reponame_str São Paulo medical journal (Online)
collection São Paulo medical journal (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv São Paulo medical journal (Online) - Associação Paulista de Medicina
repository.mail.fl_str_mv revistas@apm.org.br
_version_ 1825135063180771328