Article

The analgesic effect of the ultrasound-guided transverse abdominis plane block after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.
Korean journal of anesthesiology 04/2010; 58(4):362-8. DOI: 10.4097/kjae.2010.58.4.362
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Several methods are performed to control the pain after a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Recently, the transverse abdominis plane block has been proposed to compensate for the problems developed by preexisting methods. This study was designed to evaluate the effect of the ultrasound-guided transverse abdominis plane block (US-TAP block) and compare efficacy according to the concentration of local analgesics in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Fifty-four patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized into three groups. The patients in Group Control did not receive the US-TAP block. The patients in Group B(0.25) and Group B(0.5) received the US-TAP block with 0.25% and 0.5% levobupivacaine 30 ml respectively. After the general anesthesia, a bilateral US-TAP block was performed using an in-plane technique with 15 ml levobupivacaine on each side. Intraoperative use of remifentanil and postoperative demand of rescue analgesics in PACU were recorded. The postoperative verbal numerical rating scale (VNRS) was evaluated at 20, 30, and 60 min, and 6, 12, and 24 hr. Postoperative complications, including pneumoperitoneum, bleeding, infection, and sleep disturbance, were also checked.
The intraoperative use of remifentanil, postoperative VNRS and the postoperative demand of rescue analgesics were lower in the groups receiving the US-TAP block (Group B(0.25) and Group B(0.5)) than Group Control. There were no statistically or clinically significant differences between Group B(0.25) and Group B(0.5). No complications related to the US-TAP block were observed.
The US-TAP block with 0.25% or 0.5% levobupivacaine 30 ml (15 ml on each side) significantly reduced postoperative pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

1 Follower
 · 
197 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Preoperative TAP blocks do not decrease narcotic use after robotic surgery in gynecologic cancer.•TAP blocks are safe to use in an analgesic plan for gynecologic cancer patients regardless of BMI.•Narcotic dosing should be adjusted based on age and BMI using a nomogram created by this data set.
    Gynecologic Oncology 11/2014; 136(3). DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.11.013 · 3.69 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block can be recommended as a multimodal method to reduce postoperative pain in laparoscopic abdominal surgery. However, it is unclear whether TAP block following local anesthetic infiltration is effective. We planned this study to evaluate the effectiveness of the latter technique in laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal hernia repair (TEP). We randomly divided patients into two groups: the control group (n = 37) and TAP group (n = 37). Following the induction of general anesthesia, as a preemptive method, all of the patients were subjected to local anesthetic infiltration at the trocar sites, and the TAP group was subjected to ultrasound-guided bilateral TAP block with 30 ml of 0.375% ropivacaine in addition before TEP. Pain was assessed in the recovery room and post-surgery at 4, 8, and 24 h. Additionally, during the postoperative 24 h, the total injected dose of analgesics and incidence of nausea were recorded. On arrival in the recovery room, the pain score of the TAP group (4.33 ± 1.83) was found to be significantly lower than that of the control group (5.73 ± 2.04). However, the pain score was not significantly different between the TAP group and control group at 4, 8, and 24 h post-surgery. The total amounts of analgesics used in the TAP group were significantly less than in the control group. No significant difference was found in the incidence of nausea between the two groups. TAP block following local infiltration had a clinical advantage only in the recovery room.
    Korean journal of anesthesiology 12/2014; 67(6):398-403. DOI:10.4097/kjae.2014.67.6.398
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Use of transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block for postoperative analgesia is continuously increasing. However, few studies have investigated intraoperative effects of TAP block. We aimed to study the effects of TAP block in terms of cost-effectiveness and consumption of inhalation agents. Material and Methods Forty patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: Group 1 (n=20) patients received TAP block and Group 2 (n=20) patients did not receive TAP block. Standard anesthesia induction was used in all patients. For the maintenance of anesthesia, fractional inspired oxygen (FIO2) of 50% in air with desflurane was used with a fresh gas flow of 4 L/min. All patients were monitored with electrocardiography and for peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), end-tidal carbon dioxide (ET), heart rate (HR), noninvasive mean blood pressure (MBP), and bispectral index (BIS). Bilateral TAP blocks were performed under ultrasound guidance to Group 1 patients. The BIS value was maintained at between 40 and 50 during the surgery. The Dion formula was used to calculate consumption of desflurane for each patient. Results There was no difference between the groups with respect to demographic characteristics of the patients. Duration of anesthesia, surgery time, and dosage of fentanyl were similar in the 2 groups. However, the cost and consumption of desflurane was significantly lower in Group 1. Conclusions Total anesthesia consumption was lower and the cost-effectiveness of anesthesia was better in TAP block patients with general anesthesia than in non-TAP block patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
    Medical science monitor: international medical journal of experimental and clinical research 01/2014; 20:2783-7. DOI:10.12659/MSM.892055 · 1.22 Impact Factor

Preview (2 Sources)

Download
4 Downloads
Available from