Lateral Quadratus Lumborum Block versus Transversus Abdominis Plane Block in Laparoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Study

IF 1.6 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anesthesiology Research and Practice Pub Date : 2022-03-28 DOI:10.1155/2022/9201795
Omar Sayed Fargaly, M. Boules, M. Hamed, Mohammed Abdel Aleem Abbas, M. Shawky
{"title":"Lateral Quadratus Lumborum Block versus Transversus Abdominis Plane Block in Laparoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Study","authors":"Omar Sayed Fargaly, M. Boules, M. Hamed, Mohammed Abdel Aleem Abbas, M. Shawky","doi":"10.1155/2022/9201795","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background After laparoscopic abdominal surgery, we aim to evaluate the analgesic efficiency of US-directed bilateral transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) and quadratus lumborum block (QLB). Methods 50 patients aged 18–60 years listed for elective laparoscopic abdomen operation were registered in this study. Cases were randomly allocated into two similar groups: TAPB and QLB groups. The first outcome was the growing morphine consumption on the 1st day postoperatively. The second outcome involved VAS score, first analgesic necessities, and any postoperative complications. Statistical analysis was done with the 2-sample t-test, and Mann–Whitney U testing was utilized to compare medians for skewed end points. Qualitative data were introduced as numbers and percentages, and chi-squared testing was utilized to determine the significance. Results The median cumulative morphine consumptions on the 1st day were high significantly in the TAPB group than in the QLB group (6 mg [6, 9] vs. 3 mg [3, 6], p value ≤0.0001]). The QLB group showed an increase in the median of the time to the first analgesic request in comparison with the TAPB group (17 hours [12, 24] vs. 8 hours [6, 24], p ≤ 0.001). In addition, on the 1st day, the mean VAS scoring at rest was lower in the QLB group. Conclusion In comparison to the TAPB, the QL block delivers more successful pain relief, has an extended period of analgesic actions, extends interval to the 1st analgesic necessity, is accompanied with lesser morphine consumptions, and may be utilized in multimodal analgesia and opioid-sparing regimens after that laparoscopic operation. This trial is registered with NCT04553991.","PeriodicalId":7834,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology Research and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9201795","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background After laparoscopic abdominal surgery, we aim to evaluate the analgesic efficiency of US-directed bilateral transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) and quadratus lumborum block (QLB). Methods 50 patients aged 18–60 years listed for elective laparoscopic abdomen operation were registered in this study. Cases were randomly allocated into two similar groups: TAPB and QLB groups. The first outcome was the growing morphine consumption on the 1st day postoperatively. The second outcome involved VAS score, first analgesic necessities, and any postoperative complications. Statistical analysis was done with the 2-sample t-test, and Mann–Whitney U testing was utilized to compare medians for skewed end points. Qualitative data were introduced as numbers and percentages, and chi-squared testing was utilized to determine the significance. Results The median cumulative morphine consumptions on the 1st day were high significantly in the TAPB group than in the QLB group (6 mg [6, 9] vs. 3 mg [3, 6], p value ≤0.0001]). The QLB group showed an increase in the median of the time to the first analgesic request in comparison with the TAPB group (17 hours [12, 24] vs. 8 hours [6, 24], p ≤ 0.001). In addition, on the 1st day, the mean VAS scoring at rest was lower in the QLB group. Conclusion In comparison to the TAPB, the QL block delivers more successful pain relief, has an extended period of analgesic actions, extends interval to the 1st analgesic necessity, is accompanied with lesser morphine consumptions, and may be utilized in multimodal analgesia and opioid-sparing regimens after that laparoscopic operation. This trial is registered with NCT04553991.
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
腰方形外侧阻滞与经腹平面阻滞在腹腔镜手术中的比较:一项随机对照研究
背景腹腔镜腹部手术后,我们的目的是评估美国指导的双侧腹横肌平面阻滞(TAPB)和腰方肌阻滞(QLB)的镇痛效果。方法本研究登记了50例年龄在18-60岁之间的择期腹腔镜腹部手术患者。病例被随机分为两组:TAPB组和QLB组。第一个结果是术后第1天吗啡用量增加。第二个结果涉及VAS评分、第一次镇痛的必要性和任何术后并发症。统计分析采用2样本t检验,Mann–Whitney U检验用于比较偏斜终点的中位数。定性数据以数字和百分比的形式引入,卡方检验用于确定显著性。结果TAPB组第1天的吗啡累积消耗量中位数显著高于QLB组(6 mg[6,9]vs.3 mg[3,6],p值≤0.0001])。QLB组与TAPB组相比,首次镇痛请求的时间中位数增加(17小时[12,24]vs.8小时[6,24]p≤0.001)。此外,第1天,QLB组静息时的平均VAS评分较低。结论与TAPB相比,QL阻滞能更成功地缓解疼痛,镇痛作用时间延长,间隔延长至第一次镇痛需要,吗啡消耗较少,可用于腹腔镜手术后的多模式镇痛和阿片类药物保留方案。本试验注册号为NCT04553991。
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
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of High-Volume Low-Concentration Intraperitoneal Bupivacaine Irrigation for Postoperative Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Bupivacaine Irrigation for Analgesia. Association Between MRI Findings of Facet Arthropathy and Synovitis With Health-Related Outcome and Pain Scores Following Therapeutic Lumbar Facet Injections. Use of a Nasal Cannula as a Preoxygenation Adjunct: A Randomized Crossover Study. Weight-Based Standardized Sugammadex Dosing in Pediatrics: A Quality Improvement Initiative to Improve Compliance with Dosing Guidelines and Reduce Waste and Cost. The Effect of Preoperative Anxiety on Motor and Sensory Block Duration and Effectiveness in Spinal Anesthesia.
×
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