Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Anterior, Posterior and Combination of Quadratus Lumborum Block in Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgeries: A Pilot Study.

Q3 Medicine
Neha Singh, Suma Rabab Ahmad, Chitta Ranjan Mohanty, Sangeeta Sahoo, Subhasree Das, Vaishakh Tharavath, Sourav Kumar Panigrahi
{"title":"Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Anterior, Posterior and Combination of Quadratus Lumborum Block in Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgeries: A Pilot Study.","authors":"Neha Singh, Suma Rabab Ahmad, Chitta Ranjan Mohanty, Sangeeta Sahoo, Subhasree Das, Vaishakh Tharavath, Sourav Kumar Panigrahi","doi":"10.6859/aja.202312_61(4).0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The quadratus lumborum block (QLB) is an effective technique to provide analgesia for upper and lower abdominal surgeries. There are various approaches described in the literature, but the best approach is still to be explored. This study aims to compare the analgesic efficacy of three different approaches of QLBs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-five patients, aged 18-70 years posted for elective laparoscopic abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled after taking written informed consent. QLB was given using bupivacaine 0.25% 40 mL with injection dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg in all the groups. In Group 1 and Group 2, the drug was injected into the anterior and posterior aspects of the muscle respectively. In Group 3, a combination of the anterior-posterior approach was used. Pain scores at various intervals along with analgesic consumption and complications were observed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The demographic variables, hemodynamic parameters, and complications were comparable among the three groups. There were statistically significant differences between treatment groups in fentanyl requirement as assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test (P = 0.012). Pairwise post-hoc analysis between block groups showed that the differences between Group 1 & Group 2 and Group 2 & Group 3 were significant (P = 0.0098 and P = 0.013). The tramadol requirement was comparable in all the groups (P = 0.75). Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in Group 3 compared to other groups (P = 0.024).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Further studies can be planned to evaluate the best approach for QLB in terms of perioperative analgesia, which remains a dilemma in this pilot study. The anterior, posterior, and combined anterior-posterior QLB approaches appear equally efficacious as a component of multimodal analgesia in laparoscopic abdominal surgeries.</p>","PeriodicalId":8482,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of anesthesiology","volume":"61 4","pages":"176-182"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6859/aja.202312_61(4).0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The quadratus lumborum block (QLB) is an effective technique to provide analgesia for upper and lower abdominal surgeries. There are various approaches described in the literature, but the best approach is still to be explored. This study aims to compare the analgesic efficacy of three different approaches of QLBs.

Methods: Sixty-five patients, aged 18-70 years posted for elective laparoscopic abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled after taking written informed consent. QLB was given using bupivacaine 0.25% 40 mL with injection dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg in all the groups. In Group 1 and Group 2, the drug was injected into the anterior and posterior aspects of the muscle respectively. In Group 3, a combination of the anterior-posterior approach was used. Pain scores at various intervals along with analgesic consumption and complications were observed.

Results: The demographic variables, hemodynamic parameters, and complications were comparable among the three groups. There were statistically significant differences between treatment groups in fentanyl requirement as assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test (P = 0.012). Pairwise post-hoc analysis between block groups showed that the differences between Group 1 & Group 2 and Group 2 & Group 3 were significant (P = 0.0098 and P = 0.013). The tramadol requirement was comparable in all the groups (P = 0.75). Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in Group 3 compared to other groups (P = 0.024).

Conclusion: Further studies can be planned to evaluate the best approach for QLB in terms of perioperative analgesia, which remains a dilemma in this pilot study. The anterior, posterior, and combined anterior-posterior QLB approaches appear equally efficacious as a component of multimodal analgesia in laparoscopic abdominal surgeries.

腹腔镜腹部手术中超声引导的前方、后方和腰四肌联合阻滞的比较:一项试点研究。
背景:腰方肌阻滞(QLB)是为上腹部和下腹部手术提供镇痛的有效技术。文献中描述了多种方法,但最佳方法仍有待探索。本研究旨在比较 QLBs 三种不同方法的镇痛效果:在获得书面知情同意后,65 名年龄在 18-70 岁之间、在全身麻醉下接受择期腹腔镜腹部手术的患者被纳入研究。各组均使用 0.25% 布比卡因 40 mL,注射右美托咪定 1 mcg/kg,进行 QLB。第 1 组和第 2 组分别在肌肉的前方和后方注射药物。第 3 组则采用前后结合的方法。观察了不同时间段的疼痛评分、镇痛剂用量和并发症:结果:三组的人口统计学变量、血液动力学参数和并发症具有可比性。根据 Kruskal-Wallis 检验(P = 0.012),不同治疗组对芬太尼的需求量存在明显差异。阻滞组之间的配对事后分析表明,第 1 组和第 2 组之间以及第 2 组和第 3 组之间的差异显著(P = 0.0098 和 P = 0.013)。各组的曲马多需求量相当(P = 0.75)。第 3 组患者的满意度明显高于其他组(P = 0.024):可以计划开展进一步研究,以评估 QLB 围术期镇痛的最佳方法,这在本试验研究中仍是一个难题。作为腹腔镜腹部手术多模式镇痛的一部分,前方、后方和前后联合 QLB 方法似乎同样有效。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Asian journal of anesthesiology
Asian journal of anesthesiology Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Asian Journal of Anesthesiology (AJA), launched in 1962, is the official and peer-reviewed publication of the Taiwan Society of Anaesthesiologists. It is published quarterly (March/June/September/December) by Airiti and indexed in EMBASE, Medline, Scopus, ScienceDirect, SIIC Data Bases. AJA accepts submissions from around the world. AJA is the premier open access journal in the field of anaesthesia and its related disciplines of critical care and pain in Asia. The number of Chinese anaesthesiologists has reached more than 60,000 and is still growing. The journal aims to disseminate anaesthesiology research and services for the Chinese community and is now the main anaesthesiology journal for Chinese societies located in Taiwan, Mainland China, Hong Kong and Singapore. AJAcaters to clinicians of all relevant specialties and biomedical scientists working in the areas of anesthesia, critical care medicine and pain management, as well as other related fields (pharmacology, pathology molecular biology, etc). AJA''s editorial team is composed of local and regional experts in the field as well as many leading international experts. Article types accepted include review articles, research papers, short communication, correspondence and images.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信