Mepivacaine Versus Bupivacaine for Spinal Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Random Controlled Trials

被引:2
|
作者
Tan, Haifeng [1 ,2 ]
Wan, Teng [1 ,2 ]
Guo, Weiming [3 ]
Fan, Gang [4 ,5 ]
Xie, Yu [1 ]
机构
[1] Cent South Univ, Hunan Canc Hosp, Affiliated Canc Hosp, Xiangya Sch Med, Changsha, Hunan, Peoples R China
[2] Univ South China, Hengyang Med Coll, Hengyang, Hunan, Peoples R China
[3] Univ South China, Affiliated Hosp 2, Hengyang, Hunan, Peoples R China
[4] Huazhong Univ Sci & Technol, Dept Urol, Union Shenzhen Hosp, Shenzhen, Peoples R China
[5] Shenzhen Univ, Hlth Sci Ctr, Affiliated Hosp 6, Shenzhen, Peoples R China
关键词
Mepivacaine; Bupivacaine; Anesthesia; Meta; TOTAL HIP-ARTHROPLASTY; TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY; AMBULATORY SURGERY; LOCAL-ANESTHETICS; RECOVERY; REPLACEMENT; INFECTIONS; INJECTION; LIDOCAINE; SYMPTOMS;
D O I
10.1007/s12325-022-02088-3
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Introduction Bupivacaine is a more widely used anesthetic than mepivacaine. However, the long-acting effects of bupivacaine often lead to slow and unpredictable return. As an intermediate-acting local anesthetic, mepivacaine can enable earlier ambulation and thus has other benefits. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the anesthetic effects of mepivacaine and bupivacaine. Methods On August 12, 2021, a search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Effect estimates with 95% CI were combined using a random effects model. We performed sensitivity analyses to explore sources of heterogeneity and stability of results. Results Of the 406 papers screened, 14 population-based randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 1007 patients. Overall, compared to bupivacaine, mepivacaine was associated with higher numbers of motor block 3 (OR, 4.05; 95% CI 1.92-8.57), shorter length of stay (SMD, - 0.77; 95% CI - 1.52 to - 0.03), faster recovery from motor block (SMD, - 1.45; 95% CI - 2.39 to - 0.51), and shorter time to return to voiding (SMD, - 1.24; 95% CI - 1.83 to - 0.64). Mepivacaine was associated with a higher incidence of transient neurologic symptoms (TNS) and transient nerve root irritation (TRI) (OR, 9.18; 95% CI 2.42-34.88). There was no statistical difference between the two anesthetics in terms of pain index on the postoperative day (SMD, 0.20; 95% CI - 0.06 to 0.46) and incidence of urinary retention (OR, 0.98; 95% CI 0.47-2.03). Conclusions Mepivacaine may have advantages over bupivacaine in terms of achieving motor block 3, shorter length of stay, earlier recovery from motor block, and earlier time to return to voiding, but it may have a higher incidence of TNS or TRI than bupivacaine. Therefore, mepivacaine may be used before bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia.
引用
收藏
页码:2151 / 2164
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Mepivacaine Versus Bupivacaine for Spinal Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Random Controlled Trials
    Haifeng Tan
    Teng Wan
    Weiming Guo
    Gang Fan
    Yu Xie
    Advances in Therapy, 2022, 39 : 2151 - 2164
  • [2] Mepivacaine Versus Bupivacaine Spinal Anesthesia for Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Siddiqi, Ahmed
    Mahmoud, Yusuf
    Secic, Michelle
    Tozzi, John M.
    Emara, Ahmed
    Piuzzi, Nicolas S.
    Culp, Brian
    Schwarzkopf, Ran
    Springer, Bryan D.
    Chen, Antonia F.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2022, 37 (07) : 1396 - +
  • [3] Mepivacaine Versus Bupivacaine in Adult Surgical Patients: A Meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
    Fu, Zhongmin
    Tang, Xiumei
    Wang, Duan
    Liu, Lijun
    Li, Jiafei
    Chen, Jiali
    Ning, Ning
    Zhou, Zongke
    JOURNAL OF PERIANESTHESIA NURSING, 2022, 37 (06) : 872 - +
  • [4] Mepivacaine versus Bupivacaine Spinal Anesthesia for Early Postoperative Ambulation A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Schwenk, Eric S.
    Kasper, Vincent P.
    Smoker, Jordan D.
    Mendelson, Andrew M.
    Austin, Matthew S.
    Brown, Scot A.
    Hozack, William J.
    Cohen, Alexa J.
    Li, Jonathan J.
    Wahal, Christopher S.
    Baratta, Jaime L.
    Torjman, Marc C.
    Nemeth, Alyson C.
    Czerwinski, Eric E.
    ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2020, 133 (04) : 801 - 811
  • [5] Safety and effectiveness of adding fentanyl or sufentanil to spinal anesthesia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Fonseca, Neuber Martins
    Guimaraes, Gabriel Magalhaes Nunes
    Pontes, Joao Paulo Jordao
    Azi, Liana Maria Torres de
    Oliveira, Ricardo de Avila
    BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2023, 73 (02): : 198 - 216
  • [6] Nalbuphine for spinal anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Yu, Pan
    Zhang, Jie
    Wang, Jun
    PAIN PRACTICE, 2022, 22 (01) : 91 - 106
  • [7] Neuraxial anesthesia for orthopedic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
    Barbosa, Fabiano Timbo
    Castro, Aldemar Araujo
    de Sousa-Rodrigues, Celio Fernando
    SAO PAULO MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2013, 131 (06): : 411 - 421
  • [8] Comparison of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl as local anesthetic adjuvants in spinal anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Sun, ShuJun
    Wang, JiaMei
    Bao, NaRen
    Chen, Ying
    Wang, Jun
    DRUG DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND THERAPY, 2017, 11 : 3413 - 3424
  • [9] Combining Spinal-Epidural Anesthesia versus Single-Shot Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery: A Meta-Analysis of 5 Randomized Controlled Trials
    Jing, Chenmeng
    Wang, Chen
    MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR, 2019, 25 : 2859 - 2867
  • [10] Efficacy and safety of ketamine as an adjuvant to regional anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Xiang, Jiajia
    Cao, Chunyan
    Chen, Jiayu
    Kong, Fanyi
    Nian, Sunqi
    Li, Zhigui
    Li, Na
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA, 2024, 94