Transversus abdominis plane block in minimally invasive colon surgery: a multicenter three-arm randomized controlled superiority and non-inferiority clinical trial.

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Christopher Blom Salmonsen, Kai Henrik Wiborg Lange, Jakob Kleif, Rasmus Krøijer, Lea Bruun, Martynas Mikalonis, Peter Dalsgaard, Karen Busk Hesseldal, Jon Emil Philip Olsson, Claus Anders Bertelsen
{"title":"Transversus abdominis plane block in minimally invasive colon surgery: a multicenter three-arm randomized controlled superiority and non-inferiority clinical trial.","authors":"Christopher Blom Salmonsen, Kai Henrik Wiborg Lange, Jakob Kleif, Rasmus Krøijer, Lea Bruun, Martynas Mikalonis, Peter Dalsgaard, Karen Busk Hesseldal, Jon Emil Philip Olsson, Claus Anders Bertelsen","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2024-105712","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block is the most widely used abdominal field block in colorectal surgery with a postoperative enhanced recovery pathway. We aimed to determine whether the laparoscopic-assisted and ultrasound-guided TAP (US-TAP) blocks provide superior pain relief compared with placebo. We separately investigated whether the laparoscopic-assisted technique was non-inferior to the ultrasound-guided technique in providing pain relief, with a non-inferiority margin of 10 mg morphine dose equivalents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>340 patients undergoing elective minimally invasive colon surgery were randomly allocated to one of three groups: (1) US-TAP block, (2) laparoscopic-assisted TAP (L-TAP) block, or (3) placebo. Superiority and non-inferiority were tested for the primary outcome: 24-hour postoperative morphine equivalent consumption. Secondary outcomes, including patient-reported quality of recovery, were included in the superiority analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>127 patients were included in each block group and 86 in the placebo group. The US-TAP block was no different from placebo at -1.4 mg morphine (97.5% CI -6.8 to 4.0 mg; p=0.55). The L-TAP block was superior to placebo at -5.9 mg morphine (97.5% CI -11.3 to -0.5 mg; p=0.01) and non-inferior to the US-TAP block at -4.5 mg morphine (98.75% CI -10.0 to 1.1 mg).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The L-TAP block was superior to placebo and non-inferior to the US-TAP block. However, neither met our predetermined estimate of the minimal clinically important difference of 10 mg morphine.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT04311099.</p>","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2024-105712","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: The transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block is the most widely used abdominal field block in colorectal surgery with a postoperative enhanced recovery pathway. We aimed to determine whether the laparoscopic-assisted and ultrasound-guided TAP (US-TAP) blocks provide superior pain relief compared with placebo. We separately investigated whether the laparoscopic-assisted technique was non-inferior to the ultrasound-guided technique in providing pain relief, with a non-inferiority margin of 10 mg morphine dose equivalents.

Methods: 340 patients undergoing elective minimally invasive colon surgery were randomly allocated to one of three groups: (1) US-TAP block, (2) laparoscopic-assisted TAP (L-TAP) block, or (3) placebo. Superiority and non-inferiority were tested for the primary outcome: 24-hour postoperative morphine equivalent consumption. Secondary outcomes, including patient-reported quality of recovery, were included in the superiority analysis.

Results: 127 patients were included in each block group and 86 in the placebo group. The US-TAP block was no different from placebo at -1.4 mg morphine (97.5% CI -6.8 to 4.0 mg; p=0.55). The L-TAP block was superior to placebo at -5.9 mg morphine (97.5% CI -11.3 to -0.5 mg; p=0.01) and non-inferior to the US-TAP block at -4.5 mg morphine (98.75% CI -10.0 to 1.1 mg).

Conclusion: The L-TAP block was superior to placebo and non-inferior to the US-TAP block. However, neither met our predetermined estimate of the minimal clinically important difference of 10 mg morphine.

Trial registration number: NCT04311099.

微创结肠手术中的腹横肌平面阻滞:一项多中心三臂随机对照优劣临床试验。
背景和目的:腹横肌平面(TAP)阻滞是结直肠手术中应用最广泛的腹野阻滞,具有术后增强恢复的途径。我们的目的是确定腹腔镜辅助和超声引导下的 TAP(US-TAP)阻滞与安慰剂相比是否能更好地缓解疼痛。方法:340 名接受择期微创结肠手术的患者被随机分配到三组中的一组:(1)US-TAP 阻滞;(2)腹腔镜辅助 TAP(L-TAP)阻滞;或(3)安慰剂。对主要结果(术后 24 小时吗啡当量消耗量)进行了优劣检验。次要结果(包括患者报告的恢复质量)纳入优劣分析:每个阻滞组均有 127 名患者,安慰剂组有 86 名患者。US-TAP 阻滞与安慰剂相比,吗啡用量为-1.4 毫克(97.5% CI -6.8 至 4.0 毫克;P=0.55)。在吗啡浓度为-5.9毫克时,L-TAP阻滞优于安慰剂(97.5% CI -11.3 至 -0.5 毫克;p=0.01),在吗啡浓度为-4.5毫克时,L-TAP阻滞不劣于US-TAP阻滞(98.75% CI -10.0 至 1.1 毫克):结论:L-TAP阻滞优于安慰剂,非劣于US-TAP阻滞。结论:L-TAP阻滞优于安慰剂,不劣于US-TAP阻滞,但两者均未达到我们预先设定的10毫克吗啡最小临床重要差异:NCT04311099.
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
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
175
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, the official publication of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA), is a monthly journal that publishes peer-reviewed scientific and clinical studies to advance the understanding and clinical application of regional techniques for surgical anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. Coverage includes intraoperative regional techniques, perioperative pain, chronic pain, obstetric anesthesia, pediatric anesthesia, outcome studies, and complications. Published for over thirty years, this respected journal also serves as the official publication of the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy (ESRA), the Asian and Oceanic Society of Regional Anesthesia (AOSRA), the Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia (LASRA), the African Society for Regional Anesthesia (AFSRA), and the Academy of Regional Anaesthesia of India (AORA).
×
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