Objective To evaluate the effects of prophylactic ondansetron for preventing intrathecal opioid induced pruritus. Methods According to the Cochrane Handbook, such databases as The Cochrane Library, OVID, EMbase, PubMed, CNKI and CBM were searched to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about ondansetron for preventing intrathecal opioid induced pruritus. According to the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, the literatures were screened, and meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan 5.0 software. Results Eight RCTs involving 577 patients were included. The quality evaluation showed the bias of all studies was unclear. Meta-analysis showed that because the heterogeneity of the included studies was so large (P=0.0001, I2=80%), subgroup analyses were performed. The subgroup analyses on surgery methods showed no statistical heterogeneity among all subgroups. a) There was a significant difference in incidence rate of pruritus between the ondansetron group and the control group in arthroscopic knee or urologic surgery (RR=0.49, 95%CI 0.35 to 0.67); b) There was no significant difference in incidence rate of pruritus between the ondansetron group and the control group in obstetric surgery (RR=0.98, 95%CI 0.86 to 1.12); c) There was a significant difference in incidence rate of pruritus between the ondansetron group and the control group in gynecologic surgery (RR=0.51, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.76); and d) There was no significant difference in the incidence rate of pruritus between the ondansetron group and the control group in outpatient surgery (RR=0.49, 95%CI 0.35 to 0.67). Conclusion The subgroup analyses performed because of the large heterogeneity of the included studies indicate that ondansetron can prevent the intrathecal opioid induced pruritus in arthroscopic knee, urologic and gynecological surgeries rather than obstetric and outpatient surgeries. Due to the small scale, large heterogeneity and unclear quality evaluation of the included studies, more high quality RCTs are required to provide reliable evidence.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of intravertebral analgesia for external cephalic version. Methods We electronically searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2009), PubMed (1980 to 2009), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to 2009), Ovid EBM Database (1991 to 2009), EMbase (1980 to 2009), CBM (1978 to 2009) and CNKI (1979 to 2009) to collect literature about intravertebral analgesia for external cephalic version. We screened randomized controlled trials (RCTs) according to the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data and evaluated the quality of the included studies, and then performed meta-analyses by using RevMan 5.0.13 software. Results Seven RCTs involving 620 women met the inclusion criteria. Five trials were of relatively high quality, and 1 of low quality and 2 not clear. The result of meta-analyses showed that intravertebral analgesia was superior in external cephalic version with a RR 1.53 and 95%CI 1.24 to 1.88. Conclusion Intravertebral analgesia can increase the successful rate of external cephalic version in the treatment of breech presentation compared with intravenous medicine for systematic use or no analgesia.