Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Feb 25;2(2):CD012968.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012968.pub2.

Paravertebral anaesthesia with or without sedation versus general anaesthesia for women undergoing breast cancer surgery

Anjolie Chhabra  1 , Apala Roy Chowdhury  1 , Hemanshu Prabhakar  2 , Rajeshwari Subramaniam  1 , Mahesh Kumar Arora  1 , Anurag Srivastava  3 , Mani Kalaivani  4
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Paravertebral anaesthesia with or without sedation versus general anaesthesia for women undergoing breast cancer surgery

Anjolie Chhabra et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers among women. Surgical removal of the cancer is the mainstay of treatment; however, tumour handling during surgery can cause microscopic dissemination of tumour cells and disease recurrence. The body's hormonal response to surgery (stress response) and general anaesthesia may suppress immunity, promoting tumour dissemination. Paravertebral anaesthesia numbs the site of surgery, provides good analgesia, and blunts the stress response, minimising the need for general anaesthesia.

Objectives: To assess the effects of paravertebral anaesthesia with or without sedation compared to general anaesthesia in women undergoing breast cancer surgery, with important outcomes of quality of recovery, postoperative pain at rest, and mortality.

Search methods: On 6 April 2020, we searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group (CBCG); CENTRAL (latest issue), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (via OvidSP); Embase (via OvidSP); the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal; and ClinicalTrials.gov for all prospectively registered and ongoing trials.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adult women undergoing breast cancer surgery in which paravertebral anaesthesia with or without sedation was compared to general anaesthesia. We did not include studies in which paravertebral anaesthesia was given as an adjunct to general anaesthesia and then this was compared to use of general anaesthesia.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted details of trial methods and outcome data from eligible trials. When data could be pooled, analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis, and the random-effects model was used if there was heterogeneity. When data could not be pooled, the synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) approach was applied. The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

Main results: Nine studies (614 participants) were included in the review. All were RCTs of parallel design, wherein female patients aged > 18 years underwent breast cancer surgery under paravertebral anaesthesia or general anaesthesia. None of the studies assessed quality of recovery in the first three postoperative days using a validated questionnaire; most assessed factors affecting quality of recovery such as postoperative analgesic use, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), hospital stay, ambulation, and patient satisfaction. Paravertebral anaesthesia may reduce the 24-hour postoperative analgesic requirement (odds ratio (OR) 0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.34; 5 studies, 305 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to general anaesthesia. Heterogeneity (I² = 70%) was attributed to the fixed dose of opioids and non-steroidal analgesics administered postoperatively in one study (70 participants), masking a difference in analgesic requirements between groups. Paravertebral anaesthesia probably reduces the incidence of PONV (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.30; 6 studies, 324 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), probably results in a shorter hospital stay (mean difference (MD) -79.39 minutes, 95% CI -107.38 to -51.40; 3 studies, 174 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably reduces time to ambulation compared to general anaesthesia (SWiM analysis): percentages indicate vote counting based on direction of effect (100%, 95% CI 51.01% to 100%; P = 0.125; 4 studies, 375 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Paravertebral anaesthesia probably results in higher patient satisfaction (MD 5.52 points, 95% CI 1.30 to 9.75; 3 studies, 129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) on a 0 to 100 scale 24 hours postoperatively compared to general anaesthesia. Postoperative pain at rest and on movement was assessed at 2, 6, and 24 postoperative hours on a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS). Four studies (224 participants) found that paravertebral anaesthesia as compared to general anaesthesia probably reduced pain at 2 postoperative hours (MD -2.95, 95% CI -3.37 to -2.54; moderate-certainty evidence). Five studies (324 participants) found that paravertebral anaesthesia may reduce pain at rest at 6 hours postoperatively (MD -1.54, 95% CI -3.20 to 0.11; low-certainty evidence). Five studies (278 participants) found that paravertebral anaesthesia may reduce pain at rest at 24 hours postoperatively (MD -1.19, 95% CI -2.27 to -0.10; low-certainty evidence). Differences in the methods of two studies (119 participants) and addition of clonidine to the local anaesthetic in two studies (109 participants), respectively, contributed to the heterogeneity (I² = 96%) observed for these two outcomes. Two studies (130 participants) found that paravertebral anaesthesia may reduce pain on movement at 6 hours (MD-2.57, 95% CI -3.97 to -1.17) and at 24 hours (MD -2.12, 95% CI -4.80 to 0.55; low-certainty evidence). Heterogeneity (I² = 96%) was observed for both outcomes and could be due to methodological differences between studies. None of the studies reported mortality related to the anaesthetic technique. Eight studies (574 participants) evaluated adverse outcomes with paravertebral anaesthesia: epidural spread (0.7%), minor bleeding (1.4%), pleural puncture not associated with pneumothorax (0.3%), and Horner's syndrome (7.1%). These complications were self-limiting and resolved without treatment. No data are available on disease-free survival, chronic pain, and quality of life. Blinding of personnel or participants was not possible in any study, as a regional anaesthetic technique was compared to general anaesthesia. Risk of bias was judged to be serious, as seven studies had concerns of selection bias and three of detection bias.

Authors' conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence shows that paravertebral anaesthesia probably reduces PONV, hospital stay, postoperative pain (at 2 hours), and time to ambulation and results in greater patient satisfaction on the first postoperative day compared to general anaesthesia. Paravertebral anaesthesia may also reduce postoperative analgesic use and postoperative pain at 6 and 24 hours at rest and on movement based on low-certainty evidence. However, RCTs using validated questionnaires are needed to confirm these results. Adverse events observed with paravertebral anaesthesia are rare.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00645138.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

AC has registered for PhD thesis titled "Effect of paravertebral anaesthesia on quality of life scores and circulating tumour cells in breast cancer patients". AC has no known conflicts of interest.

ARC has no known conflicts of interest.

HP has no known conflicts of interest.

RS is co‐guide for the above mentioned thesis. RS has no known conflicts of interest.

MKA has no known conflicts of interest.

AS is co‐guide of the above mentioned PhD thesis. AS has no known conflicts of interest.

MK has no known conflicts of interest.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
3
3
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
4
4
a = Random sequence generation (selection bias), b = Concealment of the allocated sequence (selection bias), c = Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias), d = Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), e = Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), f = Selective outcome reporting (reporting bias), g = Other potential sources of bias.
5
5
a = Random sequence generation (selection bias), b = Concealment of the allocated sequence (selection bias), c = Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias), d = Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), e = Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), f = Selective outcome reporting (reporting bias), g = Other potential sources of bias.
6
6
a = Random sequence generation (selection bias), b = Concealment of the allocated sequence (selection bias), c = Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias), d = Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), e = Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), f = Selective outcome reporting (reporting bias), g = Other potential sources of bias.
7
7
a = Random sequence generation (selection bias), b = Concealment of the allocated sequence (selection bias), c = Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias), d = Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), e = Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), f = Selective outcome reporting (reporting bias), g = Other potential sources of bias.
8
8
a = Random sequence generation (selection bias), b = Concealment of the allocated sequence (selection bias), c = Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias), d = Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), e = Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), f = Selective outcome reporting (reporting bias), g = Other potential sources of bias.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1: Postoperative outcomes, Outcome 1: Postoperative analgesic requirement
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1: Postoperative outcomes, Outcome 2: Postoperative nausea and vomiting
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1: Postoperative outcomes, Outcome 3: Hospital stay
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1: Postoperative outcomes, Outcome 4: Patient satisfaction score
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1: Postoperative outcomes, Outcome 5: Postoperative pain (VAS) at 2 hours
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1: Postoperative outcomes, Outcome 6: Postoperative pain (VAS) at 6 hours at rest
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1: Postoperative outcomes, Outcome 7: Postoperative pain (VAS) at 24 hours at rest
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1: Postoperative outcomes, Outcome 8: Postoperative pain (VAS) at 6 hours on movement
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1: Postoperative outcomes, Outcome 9: Postoperative pain (VAS) at 24 hours on movement
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2: Adverse events, Outcome 1: Epidural spread
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012968

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Das 2012 {published data only}
    1. Das S, Bhattacharya P, Mandal MC, Mukhopadhyay S, Basu SR, Mandol BK. Multiple-injection thoracic paravertebral block as an alternative to general anaesthesia for elective breast surgeries: a randomised controlled trial. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia 2012;56(1):27-33. [DOI: 10.4103/0019-5049.93340] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Megahed 2010 {published data only}
    1. Megahed N, Basha H, Abdel Hamid Sh, Ali A, El-Banawy H. Pre-, intra- and post-operative plasma levels of soluble P-selectin in diabetics under thoracic paravertebral block versus general anaesthesia. Egypt Journal of Immunology 2010;17(1):49-58. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Naja 2003 {published data only}
    1. Naja MZ, Ziade MF, Lonnqvist PA. Nerve stimulator guided paravertebral blockade versus general anaesthesia for breast surgery: a prospective randomized trial. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 2003;20(11):897-903. [DOI: 10.1017/s0265021503001443] - DOI - PubMed
Paleczny 2005 {published data only}
    1. Paleczny J, Loniewska-Paleczny E, PyszM, Hura G. Comparison of the use of thoracic paravertebral block and general anesthesia in breast surgery. Borgis- Anestezjologia Intensywna Terapia 2005;1:12-6.
Pusch 1999 {published data only}
    1. Pusch F, Freitag H, Weinstabl C, Obwegeser R, Huber E, Wildling E. Single-injection paravertebral block compared to general anaesthesia in breast surgery. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 1999;43(7):770-4. [DOI: 10.1034/j.1399-6576.1999.430714.x] - DOI - PubMed
Shkol'nik 2006 {published data only}
    1. Shkol'nik L D, Vasil'ev VIu, Soboleva LV. Multi-injection thoracic paravertebral anesthesia during breast cancer operations. Anesteziologiia i Reanimataologiia 2006;4:80-5. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Sundarathiti 2015 {published data only}
    1. Sundarathiti P, Bormann B, Suvikapakornkul R, Lertsithichai P, Arnuntasupakul V. Paravertebral catheter for three-level injection in radical injection in radical mastectomy: a randomised controlled study. PLoS One 2015;10(6):e0129539. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129539. eCollection 2015] - PMC - PubMed
Tedore 2011 {unpublished data only}
    1. Tedore TR, Nowak EJ, Tousimis E, Guheen C, Bhadra P. Comparison of paravertebral block with general anesthesia in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery.
Terheggen 2002 {published data only}
    1. Terheggen MA, Wille F, Borel Rinkes IH, Ionescu TI, Knape JT. Paravertebral blockade for minor breast surgery. Anesthesia & Analgesia 2002;94(2):355-9. [DOI: 10.1097/00000539-200202000-00023] - DOI - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Sultan 2013 {published data only}
    1. Sultan SS. Paravertebral block can attenuate cytokine response when it replaces general anesthesia for cancer breast surgeries. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia 2013;7(4):373-7. [DOI: 10.4103/1658-354X.121043] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Additional references

Abdallah 2014
    1. Abdallah FW, Morgan PJ, Cil T, McNaught A, Escallon JM, Semple JL, et al. Ultrasound-guided multilevel paravertebral blocks and total intravenous anesthesia improve the quality of recovery after ambulatory breast tumor resection. Anesthesiology 2014;120(3):703-13. [DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000436117.52143.bc] - DOI - PubMed
Ban 2014
    1. Ban KA, Godellas CV. Epidemiology of breast cancer. Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America 2014;23(3):409-22. [DOI: 10.1016/j.soc.2014.03.011] - DOI - PubMed
Boughey 2009
    1. Boughey JC, Goravanchi F, Parris RN, Kee SS, Frenzel JC, Hunt KK, et al. Improved postoperative pain control using thoracic paravertebral block for breast operations. Breast Journal 2009;15(5):483-8. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2009.00763.x] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Brown 2001
    1. Brown LD, Cai TT, DasGupta A. Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Statistical Science 2001;16:101–17.
Buckenmaier 2010
    1. Buckenmaier CC 3rd, Kwon KH, Howard RS, McKnight GM, Shriver CD, Fritz WT, et al. Double-blinded, placebo-controlled, prospective randomized trial evaluating the efficacy of paravertebral block with and without continuous paravertebral block analgesia in outpatient breast cancer surgery. Pain Medicine 2010;11(5):790-9. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2010.00842.x] - DOI - PubMed
Buckley 2014
    1. Buckley A, McQuaid S, Johnson P, Buggy DJ. Effect of anaesthetic technique on the natural killer cell anti-tumour activity of serum from women undergoing breast cancer surgery: a pilot study. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2014;113(Suppl 1):i56-62. [DOI: 10.1093/bja/aeu200] - DOI - PubMed
Campbell 2020
    1. Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, Katikireddi SV, Brennan SE, Ellis S, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ 2020;368(l6890):1-6. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l6890] [PMID: ] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Cassinello 2015
    1. Cassinello F, Prieto I, Olmo M, Rivas S, Strichartz GR. Cancer surgery: how may anesthesia influence outcome? Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 2015;27(3):262-72. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2015.02.007] - DOI - PubMed
Cata 2011
    1. Cata JP, Gottumukkala V, Sessler DI. How regional analgesia might reduce postoperative cancer recurrence. European Journal of Pain Supplements 2011;5:345–55.
Cheema 1995
    1. Cheema SPS, Ilsley D, Richardson J, Sabanathan S. A thermographic study of paravertebral analgesia. Anaesthesia 1995;50(2):118-21. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1995.tb15092.x] - DOI - PubMed
Cheng 2017
    1. Cheng GS, Ilfeld BM. An evidence-based review of the efficacy of perioperative analgesic techniques for breast cancer-related surgery. Pain Medicine 2017;18(7):1344-5. [DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnw172] - DOI - PubMed
Chiu 2014
    1. Chiu M, Bryson GL, Lui A, Watters JM, Taljaard M, Nathan HJ. Reducing persistent postoperative pain and disability 1 year after breast cancer surgery: a randomized, controlled trial comparing thoracic paravertebral block to local anesthetic infiltration. Annals of Surgical Oncology 2014;21(3):795-801. [DOI: 10.1245/s10434-013-3334-6] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Cochran 1954
    1. Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954;10(1):101-29.
Coffey 2003
    1. Coffey JC, Wang JH, Smith MJ, Bouchier-Hayes D, Cotter TG, Redmond HP. Excisional surgery for cancer cure: therapy at a cost. Lancet Oncology 2003;4(12):760-8. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Coughlin 2009
    1. Coughlin SS, Ekwueme DU. Breast cancer as a global health concern. Cancer Epidemiology 2009;33(5):315-8. [DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2009.10.003.] - DOI - PubMed
Dabbagh 2007
    1. Dabbagh A, Elyasi H. The role of paravertebral block in decreasing postoperative pain in elective breast surgeries. Medical Science Monitor 2007;13(10):CR464-7. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Deegan 2009
    1. Deegan CA, Murray D, Doran P, Ecimovic P, Moriarty DC, Buggy DJ. Effect of anaesthetic technique on oestrogen receptor-negative breast cancer cell function in vitro. British Journal of Anesethesia 2009;103(5):685-90. [DOI: 10.1093/bja/aep261] - DOI - PubMed
Deegan 2010
    1. Deegan CA, Murray D, Doran P, Moriarty DC, Sessler DI, Mascha E, et al. Anesthetic technique and the cytokine and matrix metalloproteinase response to primary breast cancer surgery. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine 2010;35(6):490-5. [DOI: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181ef4d05] - DOI - PubMed
DerSimonian 1986
    1. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986;7(3):177–88. - PubMed
Ecimovic 2011
    1. Ecimovic P, Murray D, Doran P, McDonald J, Lambert DG, Buggy DJ. Direct effect of morphine on breast cancer cell function in vitro: role of the NET1 gene. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2011;107(6):916-23. [DOI: 10.1093/bja/aer259] - DOI - PubMed
Ecimovic 2013
    1. Ecimovic P, McHugh B, Murray D, Doran P, Buggy DJ. Effects of sevoflurane on breast cancer cell function in vitro. Anticancer Research 2013;33(10):4255-60. [PMID: PMID: 24122989] - PubMed
Egger 1997
    1. Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN. Meta-analysis:principles and procedures. BMJ 1997;315(7121):1533–7. [MEDLINE: ] - PMC - PubMed
Exadaktylos 2006
    1. Exadaktylos AK, Buggy DJ, Moriarty DC, Mascha E, Sessler DI. Can anesthetic technique for primary breast cancer surgery affect recurrence or metastasis? Anesthesiology 2006;105(4):660-4. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Ferlay 2015
    1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. International Journal of Cancer 2015;136(5):E359-86. [DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29210] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Gottschalk 2010
    1. Gottschalk A, Sharma S, Ford J, Durieux ME, Tiouririne M. Review article: the role of the perioperative period in recurrence after cancer surgery. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2010;110(6):1636-43. [DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181de0ab6] - DOI - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT 2015 [Computer program]
    1. McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime) GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed 13 February 2018. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), 2015. Available at gradepro.org.
Greengrass 1996
    1. Greengrass R, O'Brien F, Lyerly K, Hardman D, Gleason D, D'Ercole F, et al. Paravertebral block for breast cancer surgery. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 1996;43(8):858-61. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Guyatt 2011
    1. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(4):383-94. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026.] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557-60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Hozo 2005
    1. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2005;5:13. [DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-5-13] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Jacobs 2020
    1. Jacobs A, Lemoine A, Joshi GP, Van de Velde M, Bonnet F, PROSPECT Working Group Collaborators. PROSPECT guideline for oncological breast surgery: a systematic review and procedure-specific postoperative pain management recommendations. Anaesthesia 2020;75(5):664-73. [DOI: 10.1111/anae.14964] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Jaura 2014
    1. Jaura AI, Flood G, Gallagher HC, Buggy DJ. Differential effects of serum from patients administered distinct anaesthetic techniques on apoptosis in breast cancer cells in vitro: a pilot study. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2014;113(Suppl 1):i63-7. [DOI: 10.1093/bja/aet581] - DOI - PubMed
Kairaluoma 2004
    1. Kairaluoma PM, Bachmann MS, Rosenberg PH, Pere PJ. Single injection paravertebral block before general anaesthesia enhances analgesia after breast cancer surgery with and without associated lymph node biopsy. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2004;99(6):1837-43. [DOI: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000136775.15566.87] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Karmakar 2001
    1. Karmakar MK. Thoracic paravertebral block. Anesthesiology 2001;95(3):771–80. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Karmakar 2014
    1. Karmakar MK, Samy W, Li JW, Lee A, Chan WC, Chen PP, et al. Thoracic paravertebral block and its effects on chronic pain and health-related quality of life after modified radical mastectomy. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine 2014;39(4):289-98. [DOI: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000113] - DOI - PubMed
Li 2009
    1. Li G, Warner M, Lang BH, Huang L, Sun LS. Epidemiology of anesthesia-related mortality in the United States, 1999-2005. Anesthesiology 2009;110(4):759-65. [DOI: 10.1097/aln.0b013e31819b5bdc] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Lonnqvist 1995
    1. Lönnqvist PA, MacKenzie J, Soni AK, Conacher ID. Paravertebral blockade. Failure rate and complications. Anaesthesia 1995;50(9):813-5. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1995.tb06148.x] - DOI - PubMed
Mantel 1959
    1. Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1959;22(4):719–48. - PubMed
McKenzie 2019
    1. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE. Chapter 12. Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.0. Cochrane, 2019 edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Updated July 2019.
Moller 2007
    1. Moller JF, Nikolajsen L, Rodt SA, Ronning H, Carlsson PS. Thoracic paravertebral block for breast cancer surgery: a randomized double-blind study. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2007;105(6):1848-51. [DOI: 10.1213/01.ane.0000286135.21333.fd] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Murad 2017
    1. Murad MH, Mustafa RA, Schünemann HJ, Sultan S, Santesso N. Rating the certainty in evidence in the absence of a single estimate of effect. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 2017;22(3):85-7. [DOI: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110668] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Najarian 2003
    1. Najarian MM, Johnson JM, Landercasper J, Havlik P, Lambert PJ, McCarthy D. Paravertebral block: an alternative to general anesthesia in breast cancer surgery. American Surgeon 2003;69(3):213–8. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Niwa 2013
    1. Niwa H, Rowbotham DJ, Lambert DG, Buggy DJ. Can anesthetic techniques or drugs affect cancer recurrence in patients undergoing cancer surgery? Journal of Anesthesia 2013;27(5):731-41. [DOI: 10.1007/s00540-013-1615-7] - DOI - PubMed
O'Riain 2005
    1. O'Riain SC, Buggy DJ, Kerin MJ, Watson RW, Moriarty DC. Inhibition of the stress response to breast cancer surgery by regional anesthesia and analgesia does not affect vascular endothelial growth factor and prostaglandin E2. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2005;100(1):244-9. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Parmar 1998
    1. Parmar MKB, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 1998;17(24):2815–34. - PubMed
Pöpping 2009
    1. Pöpping DM, Elia N, Marret E, Wenk M, Tramèr MR. Clonidine as an adjuvant to local anesthetics for peripheral nerve and plexus blocks: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Anesthesiology 2009;111(2):406-15. [DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181aae897] - DOI - PubMed
Ramirez 2015
    1. Ramirez MF, Tran P, Cata JP. The effect of clinically therapeutic plasma concentrations of lidocaine on natural killer cell cytotoxicity. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine 2015;40(1):43-8. [DOI: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000191] - DOI - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Richardson 1998
    1. Richardson J, Lönnqvist PA. Thoracic paravertebral block. British Journal of Anaesthesia 1998;81(2):230–8. [DOI: 10.1093/bja/81.2.230] - DOI - PubMed
Schnabel 2010
    1. Schnabel A, Reichl SU, Kranke P, Pogatzki-Zahn EM, Zahn PK. Efficacy and safety of paravertebral blocks in breast surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2010;105(6):842-52. [DOI: 10.1093/bja/aeq265] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Schünemann 2011
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Glaziou P, et al. Chapter 12. Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Sessler 2008
    1. Sessler DI, Ben-Eliyahu S, Mascha EJ, Parat MO, Buggy DJ. Can regional analgesia reduce the risk of recurrence after breast cancer? Methodology of a multicenter randomized trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2008;29(4):517-26. [DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.01.002] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Sessler 2019
    1. Sessler DI, Pei L, Huang Y, Fleischmann E, Marhofer P, Kurz A, et al. Recurrence of breast cancer after regional or general anaesthesia: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2019;394(10211):1807-15. [DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32313-X] - DOI - PubMed
Tahiri 2011
    1. Tahiri Y, Tran DQ, Bouteaud J, Xu L, Lalonde D, Luc M, et al. General anaesthesia versus thoracic paravertebral block for breast surgery: a meta-analysis. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery 2011;64(10):1261-9. [DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2011.03.025] - DOI - PubMed
Tedore 2015
    1. Tedore T. Regional anaesthesia and analgesia: relationship to cancer recurrence and survival. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2015;115(Suppl 2):ii34-45. [DOI: 10.1093/bja/aev375] - DOI - PubMed
Terkawi 2015
    1. Terkawi AS, Tsang S, Sessler DI, Terkawi RS, Nunemaker MS, Durieux ME, et al. Improving analgesic efficacy and safety of thoracic paravertebral block for breast surgery: a mixed-effects meta-analysis. Pain Physician 2015;18(5):E757-80. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Vaghari 2014
    1. Vaghari BA, Ahmed OI, Wu CL. Regional anesthesia analgesia: relationship to cancer recurrence and infection. Anesthesiology Clinics 2014;32(4):841-51. [DOI: 10.1016/j.anclin.2014.08.004] - DOI - PubMed
Votta‐Velis 2015
    1. Votta-Velis EG, Piegeler T, Minshall RD, Aguirre J, Beck-Schimmer B, Schwartz DE, et al. Regional anaesthesia and cancer metastases: the implication of local anaesthetics. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2013;57(10):1211-29. [DOI: 10.1111/aas.12210] - DOI - PubMed
Wan 2014
    1. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2014;14(135):1-13. [http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/14/135] - PMC - PubMed
Weigelt 2005
    1. Weigelt B, Peterse JL, van't Veer LJ. Breast cancer metastasis: markers and models. Nature Reviews Cancer 2005;5(8):591-602. [DOI: 10.1038/nrc1670] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Weltz 1995
    1. Weltz CR, Greengrass RA, Lyerly HK. Ambulatory surgical management of breast carcinoma using paravertebral block. Annals of Surgery 1995;222(1):19-26. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Wigmore 2016
    1. Wigmore TJ, Mohammed K, Jhanji S. Long-term survival for patients undergoing volatile versus IV anesthesia for cancer surgery: a retrospective analysis. Anesthesiology 2016;124(1):69-79. [DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000936] - DOI - PubMed
Wu 2015
    1. Wu J, Buggy D, Fleischmann E, Parra-Sanchez I, Treschan T, Kurz A, et al. Thoracic paravertebral regional anesthesia improves analgesia after breast cancer surgery: a randomized controlled multicentre clinical trial. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2015;62(3):241-51. [DOI: 10.1007/s12630-014-0285-8] - DOI - PubMed
Youlden 2012
    1. Youlden DR, Cramb SM, Dunn NA, Muller JM, Pyke CM, Baade PD. The descriptive epidemiology of female breast cancer: an international comparison of screening, incidence, survival and mortality. Cancer Epidemiology 2012;36(3):237-48. [DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2012.02.007] - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Associated data