Comparison of modified thoracoabdominal nerve block through perichondral approach and subcostal transversus abdominis plane block for pain management in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized-controlled trial.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Hye-Yeon Cho, In Eob Hwang, Mirang Lee, Wooil Kwon, Won Ho Kim, Ho-Jin Lee
{"title":"Comparison of modified thoracoabdominal nerve block through perichondral approach and subcostal transversus abdominis plane block for pain management in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized-controlled trial.","authors":"Hye-Yeon Cho,&nbsp;In Eob Hwang,&nbsp;Mirang Lee,&nbsp;Wooil Kwon,&nbsp;Won Ho Kim,&nbsp;Ho-Jin Lee","doi":"10.3344/kjp.23114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The modified thoracoabdominal nerve block through the perichondral approach (M-TAPA) is a novel regional analgesic technique that can provide analgesia for both the lateral and anterior abdominal walls. This study aimed to compare the analgesic effect of M-TAPA with that of the subcostal transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty patients scheduled to undergo elective LC were randomly assigned to receive either M-TAPA or subcostal TAPB during anesthesia induction. The primary outcome was the maximum pain intensity during movement within the first 12 hours postoperatively, measured using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included changes in NRS scores during rest, coughing, and movement, which were assessed at 1, 2, 4, 6, and 12 hours postoperatively and immediately before discharge. Additionally, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and patient satisfaction were recorded as secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 56 patients were analyzed, and no significant difference was observed in the primary outcome between the two groups (M-TAPA: 5.5 [interquartile range (IQR): 5-7] vs . subcostal TAPB: 5 [IQR: 4-7], median difference: 0, 95% confidence interval: -1 to 1, <i>P</i> = 0.580). Furthermore, no significant differences in secondary outcomes were observed between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No significant difference was observed in the analgesic effect between the two techniques. Consequently, further research is necessary to compare the efficacy of M-TAPA with other well-established regional analgesic techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":56252,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Pain","volume":"36 3","pages":"382-391"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/7e/d8/kjp-36-3-382.PMC10322655.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.23114","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: The modified thoracoabdominal nerve block through the perichondral approach (M-TAPA) is a novel regional analgesic technique that can provide analgesia for both the lateral and anterior abdominal walls. This study aimed to compare the analgesic effect of M-TAPA with that of the subcostal transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

Methods: Sixty patients scheduled to undergo elective LC were randomly assigned to receive either M-TAPA or subcostal TAPB during anesthesia induction. The primary outcome was the maximum pain intensity during movement within the first 12 hours postoperatively, measured using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included changes in NRS scores during rest, coughing, and movement, which were assessed at 1, 2, 4, 6, and 12 hours postoperatively and immediately before discharge. Additionally, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and patient satisfaction were recorded as secondary outcomes.

Results: Data from 56 patients were analyzed, and no significant difference was observed in the primary outcome between the two groups (M-TAPA: 5.5 [interquartile range (IQR): 5-7] vs . subcostal TAPB: 5 [IQR: 4-7], median difference: 0, 95% confidence interval: -1 to 1, P = 0.580). Furthermore, no significant differences in secondary outcomes were observed between the two groups.

Conclusions: No significant difference was observed in the analgesic effect between the two techniques. Consequently, further research is necessary to compare the efficacy of M-TAPA with other well-established regional analgesic techniques.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

经软骨周围入路改良胸腹神经阻滞与肋下经腹平面阻滞治疗腹腔镜胆囊切除术疼痛的比较:一项随机对照试验。
背景:经软骨周围入路改良胸腹神经阻滞术(M-TAPA)是一种新型的局部镇痛技术,可同时对腹壁外侧和前腹壁进行镇痛。本研究旨在比较M-TAPA与肋下横腹平面阻滞(TAPB)在腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)患者中的镇痛效果。方法:60例计划进行选择性LC的患者在麻醉诱导期间随机分配接受M-TAPA或肋下TAPB。主要结果是术后前12小时内运动时的最大疼痛强度,使用11分数值评定量表(NRS)测量。次要结局包括术后1、2、4、6和12小时及出院前休息、咳嗽和运动时NRS评分的变化。此外,术后恶心呕吐和患者满意度被记录为次要结果。结果:对56例患者的数据进行分析,两组间的主要转归无显著差异(M-TAPA: 5.5[四分位间距(IQR): 5-7] vs。肋下TAPB: 5 [IQR: 4-7],中位差:0,95%可信区间:-1 ~ 1,P = 0.580)。此外,两组间的次要结局无显著差异。结论:两种方法的镇痛效果无显著差异。因此,需要进一步的研究来比较M-TAPA与其他成熟的局部镇痛技术的疗效。
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
Korean Journal of Pain
Korean Journal of Pain Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Korean Journal of Pain (Korean J Pain, KJP) is the official journal of the Korean Pain Society, founded in 1986. It has been published since 1988. It publishes peer reviewed original articles related to all aspects of pain, including clinical and basic research, patient care, education, and health policy. It has been published quarterly in English since 2009 (on the first day of January, April, July, and October). In addition, it has also become the official journal of the International Spinal Pain Society since 2016. The mission of the Journal is to improve the care of patients in pain by providing a forum for clinical researchers, basic scientists, clinicians, and other health professionals. The circulation number per issue is 50.
×
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