Comparison of efficacy of quadratus lumborum block and intrathecal morphine in elective caesarean section for postoperative analgesia - A randomised controlled trial.

IF 2.2 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2026-06-18 DOI:10.4103/ija.ija_228_26
D Jeenu, Anand B Medidi, Rahul Pillai, Ekta Rai
{"title":"Comparison of efficacy of quadratus lumborum block and intrathecal morphine in elective caesarean section for postoperative analgesia - A randomised controlled trial.","authors":"D Jeenu, Anand B Medidi, Rahul Pillai, Ekta Rai","doi":"10.4103/ija.ija_228_26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>As caesarean section (C-section) rates continue to rise, effective planning and management of postoperative pain become crucial. Poor control can delay early mobilisation and breastfeeding, and it also raises the risk of complications like thromboembolic events, postoperative ileus, and chronic pain development. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of postoperative analgesia between intrathecal morphine (ITM) and quadratus lumborum block (QLB) in the elective C-section.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial included 60 women who underwent elective C-sections. The participants were randomly assigned to receive either ITM [0.1 ml (100 μg) of morphine] or bilateral QLB with 40 ml 0.375% ropivacaine. Both the ITM and QLB groups had received a subarachnoid block consisting of 2 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 0.1 ml of ITM or saline for a total of 2.1 ml. Postoperatively, pain score using the numerical rating scale (NRS), the need for rescue analgesia, and patient satisfaction score (0-10) were monitored for 48 h.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of the 60 parturients enroled, 59 were included in the final analysis (ITM <i>n</i> = 30, QLB <i>n</i> = 29). Postoperative pain scores assessed using the NRS were significantly lower in the ITM group than in the QLB group at 4, 8, 12, and 24 h after surgery (<i>P</i> = 0.042). The time to first request for rescue analgesia was longer in the ITM group than in the QLB group (19.8 ± 10.3 h vs 9.2 ± 4.3 h; <i>P</i> < 0.001). Patients in the ITM group also reported higher patient satisfaction scores. No clinically significant adverse effects were observed in either group during the study period.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Group ITM was associated with lower postoperative pain scores, longer-lasting analgesia, reduced need for rescue analgesics, and higher patient satisfaction compared with QLB after elective C-section, with no clinically significant adverse effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":13339,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":"70 6","pages":"719-725"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13322596/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_228_26","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: As caesarean section (C-section) rates continue to rise, effective planning and management of postoperative pain become crucial. Poor control can delay early mobilisation and breastfeeding, and it also raises the risk of complications like thromboembolic events, postoperative ileus, and chronic pain development. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of postoperative analgesia between intrathecal morphine (ITM) and quadratus lumborum block (QLB) in the elective C-section.

Methods: This prospective, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial included 60 women who underwent elective C-sections. The participants were randomly assigned to receive either ITM [0.1 ml (100 μg) of morphine] or bilateral QLB with 40 ml 0.375% ropivacaine. Both the ITM and QLB groups had received a subarachnoid block consisting of 2 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 0.1 ml of ITM or saline for a total of 2.1 ml. Postoperatively, pain score using the numerical rating scale (NRS), the need for rescue analgesia, and patient satisfaction score (0-10) were monitored for 48 h.

Results: Out of the 60 parturients enroled, 59 were included in the final analysis (ITM n = 30, QLB n = 29). Postoperative pain scores assessed using the NRS were significantly lower in the ITM group than in the QLB group at 4, 8, 12, and 24 h after surgery (P = 0.042). The time to first request for rescue analgesia was longer in the ITM group than in the QLB group (19.8 ± 10.3 h vs 9.2 ± 4.3 h; P < 0.001). Patients in the ITM group also reported higher patient satisfaction scores. No clinically significant adverse effects were observed in either group during the study period.

Conclusion: Group ITM was associated with lower postoperative pain scores, longer-lasting analgesia, reduced need for rescue analgesics, and higher patient satisfaction compared with QLB after elective C-section, with no clinically significant adverse effects.

腰方肌阻滞和鞘内吗啡用于选择性剖宫产术后镇痛的疗效比较——一项随机对照试验。
背景和目的:随着剖宫产率的持续上升,有效的计划和管理术后疼痛变得至关重要。控制不良会延迟早期活动和母乳喂养,还会增加血栓栓塞事件、术后肠梗阻和慢性疼痛发展等并发症的风险。本研究旨在比较鞘内吗啡(ITM)和腰方肌阻滞(QLB)在择期剖腹产术后镇痛的效果。方法:这项前瞻性、双盲、随机对照试验包括60名接受择期剖腹产的妇女。参与者被随机分配接受ITM (0.1 ml (100 μg)吗啡)或双侧QLB (40 ml 0.375%罗哌卡因)。ITM组和QLB组均接受蛛网膜下腔阻滞,由2ml 0.5%高压布比卡因与0.1 ml ITM或生理盐水组成,共2.1 ml。术后采用数值评定量表(NRS)监测疼痛评分、抢救镇痛需求和患者满意度评分(0-10),持续48 h。结果:入选的60例产妇中,59例纳入最终分析(ITM n = 30, QLB n = 29)。术后4、8、12、24 h, ITM组采用NRS评估的术后疼痛评分明显低于QLB组(P = 0.042)。ITM组首次请求救援镇痛的时间比QLB组长(19.8±10.3 h vs 9.2±4.3 h; P < 0.001)。ITM组的患者也报告了更高的患者满意度得分。在研究期间,两组均未观察到有临床意义的不良反应。结论:与QLB组相比,ITM组择期剖腹产术后疼痛评分较低,镇痛持续时间较长,对抢救性镇痛药物的需求较少,患者满意度较高,无临床显著不良反应。
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
4.20
自引率
44.80%
发文量
210
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
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
小红书