Neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery: systematic review
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2013 |
Outros Autores: | |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | São Paulo medical journal (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802013000300179 |
Resumo: | 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_5e9ed2e0e0fba220178d6f053c22d48d |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S1516-31802013000300179 |
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 reviewMortalityAnesthesia, general. Anesthesia, 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. Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM2013-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802013000300179Sao Paulo Medical Journal v.131 n.3 2013reponame:São Paulo medical journal (Online)instname:Associação Paulista de Medicinainstacron:APM10.1590/1516-3180.2013.1313535info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessBarbosa,Fabiano TimboCastro,Aldemar Araujoeng2013-10-08T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1516-31802013000300179Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/spmjhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phprevistas@apm.org.br1806-94601516-3180opendoar:2013-10-08T00:00São Paulo medical journal (Online) - Associação Paulista de Medicinafalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery: systematic review |
title |
Neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery: systematic review |
spellingShingle |
Neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery: systematic review Barbosa,Fabiano Timbo 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 Timbo |
author_facet |
Barbosa,Fabiano Timbo Castro,Aldemar Araujo |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Castro,Aldemar Araujo |
author2_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Barbosa,Fabiano Timbo Castro,Aldemar Araujo |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Mortality Anesthesia, general. Anesthesia, epidural Anesthesia, spinal Review [publication type] |
topic |
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 |
2013-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802013000300179 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802013000300179 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/1516-3180.2013.1313535 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Sao Paulo Medical Journal v.131 n.3 2013 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_ |
1754209263516909568 |