Ultrasound-guided transversalis fascia plane block or transversus abdominis plane block for recovery after caesarean section: A randomised clinical trial.
Ahmet Pinarbaşi, Başak Altiparmak, Melike Korkmaz Toker, Fatih Pirinççi, Bakiye Uğur
{"title":"Ultrasound-guided transversalis fascia plane block or transversus abdominis plane block for recovery after caesarean section: A randomised clinical trial.","authors":"Ahmet Pinarbaşi, Başak Altiparmak, Melike Korkmaz Toker, Fatih Pirinççi, Bakiye Uğur","doi":"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Caesarean section is a widely performed surgical procedure that often results in moderate-to-severe postoperative pain. If left untreated, this pain can lead to short-term and long-term consequences. Transversalis fascia plane (TFP) block and transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block are among the regional anaesthesia techniques employed for managing pain after a caesarean section.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to compare the impact of these two blocks on the quality of recovery in patients undergoing elective caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A single-centre, double-blind, randomised trial.</p><p><strong>Settings: </strong>Operating room, postanaesthesia recovery unit, and ward in a tertiary hospital.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Ninety-three patients (ASA 2 to 3) were recruited. After exclusion, 79 patients were included in the final analysis: 40 in the TFP block group and 39 in the TAP block group.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>After surgery, participants received either TFP block (20 ml 0.25% bupivacaine for each side) or TAP block (20 ml 0.25% bupivacaine for each side).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was the difference in obstetric quality of recovery 11-Turkish (ObsQoR-11T) scores between groups. Secondary outcomes included pain scores, opioid consumption and incidence of opioid-related complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean ObsQoR-11T score was higher in the TFP block group compared with the TAP block group (97.13 ± 6.67 points vs. 87.10 ± 9.84 points, respectively; P < 0.001). The pain scores in the TFP block group were slightly lower between postoperative 4 and 24 h. The mean total morphine consumption was 15.08 ± 2.21 mg in the TFP block group and 22.21 ± 3.04 mg in the TAP block group ( P < 0.001). More patients required rescue analgesia between 4 and 8 h in the TAP block group [2.00 (5.00%) vs. 9.00 (23.08%), P = 0.02]. No significant differences were observed between groups in terms of opioid-related side effects.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TFP block used for analgesic purposes yielded a better quality recovery period than TAP block and also reduced opioid consumption.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05999981).</p><p><strong>Visual abstract: </strong>http://links.lww.com/EJA/B6 .</p>","PeriodicalId":11920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002041","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Caesarean section is a widely performed surgical procedure that often results in moderate-to-severe postoperative pain. If left untreated, this pain can lead to short-term and long-term consequences. Transversalis fascia plane (TFP) block and transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block are among the regional anaesthesia techniques employed for managing pain after a caesarean section.
Objective: We aimed to compare the impact of these two blocks on the quality of recovery in patients undergoing elective caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia.
Design: A single-centre, double-blind, randomised trial.
Settings: Operating room, postanaesthesia recovery unit, and ward in a tertiary hospital.
Participants: Ninety-three patients (ASA 2 to 3) were recruited. After exclusion, 79 patients were included in the final analysis: 40 in the TFP block group and 39 in the TAP block group.
Interventions: After surgery, participants received either TFP block (20 ml 0.25% bupivacaine for each side) or TAP block (20 ml 0.25% bupivacaine for each side).
Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the difference in obstetric quality of recovery 11-Turkish (ObsQoR-11T) scores between groups. Secondary outcomes included pain scores, opioid consumption and incidence of opioid-related complications.
Results: The mean ObsQoR-11T score was higher in the TFP block group compared with the TAP block group (97.13 ± 6.67 points vs. 87.10 ± 9.84 points, respectively; P < 0.001). The pain scores in the TFP block group were slightly lower between postoperative 4 and 24 h. The mean total morphine consumption was 15.08 ± 2.21 mg in the TFP block group and 22.21 ± 3.04 mg in the TAP block group ( P < 0.001). More patients required rescue analgesia between 4 and 8 h in the TAP block group [2.00 (5.00%) vs. 9.00 (23.08%), P = 0.02]. No significant differences were observed between groups in terms of opioid-related side effects.
Conclusion: TFP block used for analgesic purposes yielded a better quality recovery period than TAP block and also reduced opioid consumption.
期刊介绍：
The European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA) publishes original work of high scientific quality in the field of anaesthesiology, pain, emergency medicine and intensive care. Preference is given to experimental work or clinical observation in man, and to laboratory work of clinical relevance. The journal also publishes commissioned reviews by an authority, editorials, invited commentaries, special articles, pro and con debates, and short reports (correspondences, case reports, short reports of clinical studies).
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
