Does Ultrasound-Guided Quadratus Lumborum Block Improve Pain after Hysterectomy.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Amro Elfeky, Nimra Dad, Adi Borovich, Allix Hillebrand, Shantel Jiggetts, Michael Silver, David Herzog, Lily Shamsnia, Scott Chudnoff, Lindsey Michel, Pedram Bral, Justin To
{"title":"Does Ultrasound-Guided Quadratus Lumborum Block Improve Pain after Hysterectomy.","authors":"Amro Elfeky, Nimra Dad, Adi Borovich, Allix Hillebrand, Shantel Jiggetts, Michael Silver, David Herzog, Lily Shamsnia, Scott Chudnoff, Lindsey Michel, Pedram Bral, Justin To","doi":"10.4293/JSLS.2025.00002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Determine whether the quadratus lumborum block (QLB) is an effective adjunct to control postoperative pain during the first 24 hours after minimally invasive hysterectomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospective cohort observational study of patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic hysterectomy. Patients either received a QLB or did not. Initial postoperative pain scores were recorded in the postanesthesia recovery area using a numeric rating scale. Patients were then called to collect 24-hour scores and analgesic medication usage. The primary outcome was the 3-hour pain score. Secondary analysis evaluated use of analgesic medication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty patients were enrolled in the study: 25 patients in the no-QLB cohort and 25 patients in the QLB group. The median postoperative pain scores (out of 10) were 4, 2, and 6 at 1, 3, and 24 hours in the no-QLB group. Scores were 5 (<i>P</i> = .541), 3 (<i>P</i> = .418), and 6 (<i>P</i> = .358), respectively, in the QLB group. A total of 11 of 25 patients at 1 hour, 8 of 25 patients at 3 hours, and 21 of 25 patients at 24 hours used analgesia postoperatively in the no-QLB group, compared to 11 of 25 patients at 1 hour (<i>P</i> = 1.0), 18 of 25 patients at 3 hours (<i>P</i> = .005), and 23 of 25 patients at 24 hours (<i>P</i> = .384) in the QLB group. Opioid, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen usage was not significantly different between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was no significant pain difference between the no-QLB and QLB groups. Patients who received a QLB were more likely to receive pain medication 3 hours after surgery. Thus, the use of a QLB does not appear to be a suitable adjunct for postoperative pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":17679,"journal":{"name":"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons","volume":"29 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12061071/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2025.00002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Determine whether the quadratus lumborum block (QLB) is an effective adjunct to control postoperative pain during the first 24 hours after minimally invasive hysterectomy.

Methods: Prospective cohort observational study of patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic hysterectomy. Patients either received a QLB or did not. Initial postoperative pain scores were recorded in the postanesthesia recovery area using a numeric rating scale. Patients were then called to collect 24-hour scores and analgesic medication usage. The primary outcome was the 3-hour pain score. Secondary analysis evaluated use of analgesic medication.

Results: Fifty patients were enrolled in the study: 25 patients in the no-QLB cohort and 25 patients in the QLB group. The median postoperative pain scores (out of 10) were 4, 2, and 6 at 1, 3, and 24 hours in the no-QLB group. Scores were 5 (P = .541), 3 (P = .418), and 6 (P = .358), respectively, in the QLB group. A total of 11 of 25 patients at 1 hour, 8 of 25 patients at 3 hours, and 21 of 25 patients at 24 hours used analgesia postoperatively in the no-QLB group, compared to 11 of 25 patients at 1 hour (P = 1.0), 18 of 25 patients at 3 hours (P = .005), and 23 of 25 patients at 24 hours (P = .384) in the QLB group. Opioid, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen usage was not significantly different between groups.

Conclusion: There was no significant pain difference between the no-QLB and QLB groups. Patients who received a QLB were more likely to receive pain medication 3 hours after surgery. Thus, the use of a QLB does not appear to be a suitable adjunct for postoperative pain.

超声引导下腰方肌阻滞能改善子宫切除术后疼痛吗?
目的:探讨腰方肌阻滞(QLB)在微创子宫切除术后24小时内是否能有效控制术后疼痛。方法:对腹腔镜或机器人子宫切除术患者进行前瞻性队列观察研究。患者接受或未接受QLB。在麻醉后恢复区使用数字评定量表记录初始术后疼痛评分。然后要求患者收集24小时评分和镇痛药物使用情况。主要结果为3小时疼痛评分。二次分析评估镇痛药物的使用。结果:50例患者入组:无QLB组25例,QLB组25例。无qlb组在1、3和24小时的中位术后疼痛评分(满分10分)分别为4、2和6分。QLB组得分分别为5分(P = 0.541)、3分(P = 0.418)、6分(P = 0.358)。无QLB组术后1小时11例,3小时8例,24小时21例,而QLB组术后1小时11例(P = 1.0), 3小时18例(P = 0.005), 24小时23例(P = .384)。阿片类药物、对乙酰氨基酚和布洛芬的使用在两组间无显著差异。结论:无QLB组与QLB组疼痛差异无统计学意义。接受QLB的患者更有可能在手术后3小时接受止痛药治疗。因此,使用QLB似乎不是术后疼痛的合适辅助手段。
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
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
69
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JSLS, Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons publishes original scientific articles on basic science and technical topics in all the fields involved with laparoscopic, robotic, and minimally invasive surgery. CRSLS, MIS Case Reports from SLS is dedicated to the publication of Case Reports in the field of minimally invasive surgery. The journals seek to advance our understandings and practice of minimally invasive, image-guided surgery by providing a forum for all relevant disciplines and by promoting the exchange of information and ideas across specialties.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信