• Something wrong with this record ?

Preservation versus dissection of the intercostobrachial nerve for breast cancer surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

NM. Al-Dardery, AM. Khaity, KA. Albakri, AT. Abdelsattar, AY. Benmelouka, T. Lee, JA. Foppiani, SJ. Lin

. 2024 ; 86 (2) : 1003-1011. [pub] 20231213

Status not-indexed Language English Country England, Great Britain

Document type Journal Article, Review

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc24005899

INTRODUCTION: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of preservation of the intercostobrachial nerve (ICBN) versus its dissection for patients who underwent breast surgery. METHODS: The authors searched Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus from inception until March 2023. Records were screened for eligible studies, and all relevant outcomes were pooled as an odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% CI in the meta-analysis models using RevMan version 5.4. RESULTS: These results from 11 studies (1021 patients) favored preservation of the ICBN over its dissection in terms of anaesthesia and hypaesthesia [OR 0.50, (95% CI, 0.31-0.82); P = 0.006] and [OR 0.33, (95% CI, 0.16-0.68); P = 0.003], respectively. Whereas the overall effect favored ICBN dissection over preservation in the case of hyperaesthesia [OR 4.34, (95% CI, 1.43-13.15); P = 0.01]. Conversely, no significant variance was detected between the two groups in terms of pain [OR 0.68, (95% CI, 0.28-1.61) P = 0.38], paraesthesia [OR 0.88, (95% CI, 0.49-1.60); P = 0.68], and analgesia [OR 1.46, (95% CI, 0.05-45.69); P = 0.83]. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis revealed that the preservation of the ICBN has a significant effect on the disturbance of sensory parameters of hypaesthesia and anaesthesia when compared to its dissection. Further studies with larger sample sizes are recommended to precisely compare both techniques on a wider range of parameters.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc24005899
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20240412130850.0
007      
ta
008      
240405s2024 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1097/MS9.0000000000001622 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)38333310
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Al-Dardery, Nada M $u Faculty of Medicine, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt
245    10
$a Preservation versus dissection of the intercostobrachial nerve for breast cancer surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis / $c NM. Al-Dardery, AM. Khaity, KA. Albakri, AT. Abdelsattar, AY. Benmelouka, T. Lee, JA. Foppiani, SJ. Lin
520    9_
$a INTRODUCTION: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of preservation of the intercostobrachial nerve (ICBN) versus its dissection for patients who underwent breast surgery. METHODS: The authors searched Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus from inception until March 2023. Records were screened for eligible studies, and all relevant outcomes were pooled as an odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% CI in the meta-analysis models using RevMan version 5.4. RESULTS: These results from 11 studies (1021 patients) favored preservation of the ICBN over its dissection in terms of anaesthesia and hypaesthesia [OR 0.50, (95% CI, 0.31-0.82); P = 0.006] and [OR 0.33, (95% CI, 0.16-0.68); P = 0.003], respectively. Whereas the overall effect favored ICBN dissection over preservation in the case of hyperaesthesia [OR 4.34, (95% CI, 1.43-13.15); P = 0.01]. Conversely, no significant variance was detected between the two groups in terms of pain [OR 0.68, (95% CI, 0.28-1.61) P = 0.38], paraesthesia [OR 0.88, (95% CI, 0.49-1.60); P = 0.68], and analgesia [OR 1.46, (95% CI, 0.05-45.69); P = 0.83]. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis revealed that the preservation of the ICBN has a significant effect on the disturbance of sensory parameters of hypaesthesia and anaesthesia when compared to its dissection. Further studies with larger sample sizes are recommended to precisely compare both techniques on a wider range of parameters.
590    __
$a NEINDEXOVÁNO
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a přehledy $7 D016454
700    1_
$a Khaity, Abdulrhman M $u Faculty of Medicine, Elrazi University, Khartoum, Sudan
700    1_
$a Albakri, Khaled A $u Faculty of Medicine, The Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan
700    1_
$a Abdelsattar, Ahmed T $u Faculty of Medicine, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt
700    1_
$a Benmelouka, Amira Y $u Faculty of Medicine, University of Algiers, Algiers, Algeria
700    1_
$a Lee, Theodore $u Georgetown University, Washington DC
700    1_
$a Foppiani, Jose A $u 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
700    1_
$a Lin, Samuel J $u Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
773    0_
$w MED00189501 $t Annals of medicine and surgery $x 2049-0801 $g Roč. 86, č. 2 (2024), s. 1003-1011
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38333310 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20240405 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20240412130843 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2076061 $s 1215661
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-PubMed-not-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2024 $b 86 $c 2 $d 1003-1011 $e 20231213 $i 2049-0801 $m Annals of medicine and surgery $n Ann Med Surg (Lond) $x MED00189501
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20240405

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options