Comments on comparing analgesic efficacy of different local blocks after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Korean Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.3344/kjp.23211
Xue Gao, Fu-Shan Xue, Xin-Tao Li
{"title":"Comments on comparing analgesic efficacy of different local blocks after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.","authors":"Xue Gao, Fu-Shan Xue, Xin-Tao Li","doi":"10.3344/kjp.23211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a single-center randomized controlled trial including 60 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Cho et al. [1] compared the postoperative analgesic efficacy of the modified thoracoabdominal nerve block through the perichondral approach (M-TAPA) and subcostal transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) and showed no significant difference in postoperative pain scores, cumulative analgesic consumption, patient satisfaction with pain control, or incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting between two techniques. The authors should be congratulated on their excellent work. However, beyond the limitations described in the discussion section, we had several questions about the design and results of this study and wished to get the authors’ responses. First, as an important component of multimodal analgesic strategy, basic analgesics, such as acetaminophen and ketorolac, were intravenously administered during surgery. However, it was unclear why these drugs were not continuously used after surgery. The current protocols for enhanced recovery after surgery for laparoscopic surgery recommend that administration of basic analgesics should be started before or during an operation and regularly executed after surgery, while opioids should only be reserved for rescue analgesia [2]. Even without local blocks, a well-designed multimodal analgesic strategy can also adequately control postoperative pain, keep the patient comfortable, as well as decrease the opioid dose and adverse effects by the synergistic or additive effects of various types of analgesics in the patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy [3]. Jung et al. [4] demonstrated that even the addition of the bilateral subcostal and lateral TAPB to a standard multimodal analgesic strategy does not improve analgesic outcomes or quality of recovery following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Second, to keep the patient comfortable, a numeric rating scale (NRS) score of 3 or less is generally considered as satisfactory postoperative pain control [2]. According to figures 3–6 in the article by Cho et al. [1], we noted that the median NRS score of maximum pain intensity during movement within the first 12 hours postoperatively were 5 or more, with large interquartile ranges. Furthermore, a significant proportion of patients had median NRS scores of 4 or more at rest and during coughing and movement within the first 6 hours postoperatively. These results indicate that most patients experienced moderate","PeriodicalId":56252,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Pain","volume":"36 4","pages":"473-475"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/59/c3/kjp-36-4-473.PMC10551402.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.23211","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In a single-center randomized controlled trial including 60 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Cho et al. [1] compared the postoperative analgesic efficacy of the modified thoracoabdominal nerve block through the perichondral approach (M-TAPA) and subcostal transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) and showed no significant difference in postoperative pain scores, cumulative analgesic consumption, patient satisfaction with pain control, or incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting between two techniques. The authors should be congratulated on their excellent work. However, beyond the limitations described in the discussion section, we had several questions about the design and results of this study and wished to get the authors’ responses. First, as an important component of multimodal analgesic strategy, basic analgesics, such as acetaminophen and ketorolac, were intravenously administered during surgery. However, it was unclear why these drugs were not continuously used after surgery. The current protocols for enhanced recovery after surgery for laparoscopic surgery recommend that administration of basic analgesics should be started before or during an operation and regularly executed after surgery, while opioids should only be reserved for rescue analgesia [2]. Even without local blocks, a well-designed multimodal analgesic strategy can also adequately control postoperative pain, keep the patient comfortable, as well as decrease the opioid dose and adverse effects by the synergistic or additive effects of various types of analgesics in the patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy [3]. Jung et al. [4] demonstrated that even the addition of the bilateral subcostal and lateral TAPB to a standard multimodal analgesic strategy does not improve analgesic outcomes or quality of recovery following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Second, to keep the patient comfortable, a numeric rating scale (NRS) score of 3 or less is generally considered as satisfactory postoperative pain control [2]. According to figures 3–6 in the article by Cho et al. [1], we noted that the median NRS score of maximum pain intensity during movement within the first 12 hours postoperatively were 5 or more, with large interquartile ranges. Furthermore, a significant proportion of patients had median NRS scores of 4 or more at rest and during coughing and movement within the first 6 hours postoperatively. These results indicate that most patients experienced moderate
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腹腔镜胆囊切除术后不同局部阻滞镇痛效果的比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Korean Journal of Pain
Korean Journal of Pain Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Korean Journal of Pain (Korean J Pain, KJP) is the official journal of the Korean Pain Society, founded in 1986. It has been published since 1988. It publishes peer reviewed original articles related to all aspects of pain, including clinical and basic research, patient care, education, and health policy. It has been published quarterly in English since 2009 (on the first day of January, April, July, and October). In addition, it has also become the official journal of the International Spinal Pain Society since 2016. The mission of the Journal is to improve the care of patients in pain by providing a forum for clinical researchers, basic scientists, clinicians, and other health professionals. The circulation number per issue is 50.
期刊最新文献
Ultrasound-guided pain management: pros, cons, and benefits for the Philippines. Retraction: Comparison of the efficacy of genicular nerve phenol neurolysis and radiofrequency ablation for pain management in patients with knee osteoarthritis. A critical factor in resistant piriformis syndrome cases: awareness of sacrotuberous ligament pain. Effect of ultrasound-guided ilioinguinal-iliohypogastric nerve block on chronic pain in patients undergoing open inguinal hernia surgery under spinal anesthesia: a randomized double-blind study. Ultrasound-guided transoral pterygopalatine fossa block: cadaveric elaboration of a novel technique.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1