Comparison of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block and quadratus lumborum block for postoperative analgesia following laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: A prospective randomized, double-blind study

IF 0.2 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY
K. Sengupta, Jitendra Ladhania, Amitava Kundu, Titisa Mitra, Tuhin Mistry
{"title":"Comparison of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block and quadratus lumborum block for postoperative analgesia following laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: A prospective randomized, double-blind study","authors":"K. Sengupta, Jitendra Ladhania, Amitava Kundu, Titisa Mitra, Tuhin Mistry","doi":"10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_34_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Aims: The application of ultrasound (USG)-guided interfascial plane blocks in transplant anesthesia is expanding. This study evaluates and compares the postoperative analgesic efficacy of USG-guided transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) and quadratus lumborum block (QLB) in adult individuals undergoing laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN). Materials and Methods: A hundred donors of either sex, aged 30–60 years, scheduled to undergo LLDN were randomly allocated into two groups. After completion of the LLDN, USG-guided unilateral TAPB and QLB were performed in lateral position in Groups A (n = 48) and B (n = 48), respectively. A volume of 20 ml of 0.375% ropivacaine was administered in both groups. Postextubation donors were shifted to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and numeric rating scale (NRS) scores were recorded on arrival at PACU at the time of discharge from PACU. Subsequently, the donor was shifted to the intensive care unit, and the vitals and NRS scores (static and dynamic) were monitored postoperatively on the 2nd, 6th, 12th, 18th, and 24th h. Duration of analgesia and the number of donors who needed rescue analgesia were also noted. All the donors were observed for any side effects and complications. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The NRS score was significantly lower in Group B (QLB) than in Group A (TAPB). Duration of analgesia was significantly prolonged in Group B (11.34 ± 1.53 h) compared to Group A (9.05 ± 1.58 min). (P < 0.001) Conclusion: The QLB effectively prolonged the duration of analgesia, lowers pain scores, and decreases the requirement of rescue analgesia compared to the TAPB. Hence, the donors remain comfortable in the postoperative period without any potential side effects.","PeriodicalId":42359,"journal":{"name":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_34_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Aims: The application of ultrasound (USG)-guided interfascial plane blocks in transplant anesthesia is expanding. This study evaluates and compares the postoperative analgesic efficacy of USG-guided transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) and quadratus lumborum block (QLB) in adult individuals undergoing laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN). Materials and Methods: A hundred donors of either sex, aged 30–60 years, scheduled to undergo LLDN were randomly allocated into two groups. After completion of the LLDN, USG-guided unilateral TAPB and QLB were performed in lateral position in Groups A (n = 48) and B (n = 48), respectively. A volume of 20 ml of 0.375% ropivacaine was administered in both groups. Postextubation donors were shifted to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and numeric rating scale (NRS) scores were recorded on arrival at PACU at the time of discharge from PACU. Subsequently, the donor was shifted to the intensive care unit, and the vitals and NRS scores (static and dynamic) were monitored postoperatively on the 2nd, 6th, 12th, 18th, and 24th h. Duration of analgesia and the number of donors who needed rescue analgesia were also noted. All the donors were observed for any side effects and complications. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The NRS score was significantly lower in Group B (QLB) than in Group A (TAPB). Duration of analgesia was significantly prolonged in Group B (11.34 ± 1.53 h) compared to Group A (9.05 ± 1.58 min). (P < 0.001) Conclusion: The QLB effectively prolonged the duration of analgesia, lowers pain scores, and decreases the requirement of rescue analgesia compared to the TAPB. Hence, the donors remain comfortable in the postoperative period without any potential side effects.
超声引导下腹横肌平面阻滞和腰方肌阻滞用于腹腔镜活体供肾切除术后镇痛的比较:一项前瞻性随机双盲研究
背景与目的:超声引导下筋膜间平面阻滞在移植麻醉中的应用正在扩大。本研究评估并比较了USG引导的腹横肌平面阻滞(TAPB)和腰方肌阻滞(QLB)在腹腔镜活体供肾切除(LLDN)成年患者中的术后镇痛效果。材料和方法:将100名年龄在30-60岁之间的捐赠者随机分为两组。LLDN完成后,A组(n=48)和B组(n=8)分别在侧位进行USG引导的单侧TAPB和QLB。两组均给予体积为20 ml的0.375%罗哌卡因。拔管后的捐献者被转移到麻醉后护理室(PACU)。从PACU出院时,在到达PACU时记录心率、收缩压、舒张压和数字评定量表(NRS)评分。随后,将供体转移到重症监护室,并在术后第2、6、12、18和24小时监测生命体征和NRS评分(静态和动态)。还记录了镇痛持续时间和需要抢救性镇痛的供体人数。观察所有供体是否有任何副作用和并发症。P<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。结果:B组(QLB)NRS评分明显低于A组(TAPB)。与A组(9.05±1.58min)相比,B组的镇痛持续时间显著延长(11.34±1.53h)。(P<0.001)结论:与TAPB相比,QLB能有效延长镇痛时间,降低疼痛评分,降低抢救镇痛需求。因此,供体在术后期间保持舒适,没有任何潜在的副作用。
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
Indian Anaesthetists Forum
Indian Anaesthetists Forum ANESTHESIOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
6 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信