Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 27238

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2023 | Month : September | Volume : 17 | Issue : 9 | Page : QC11 - QC15 Full Version

Surgical Transversus Abdominis Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Lower Abdominal Surgeries: A Prospective Interventional Study


Published: September 1, 2023 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2023/65598.18477
Nandini Bhupal, Rajiv Kumar Saxena, Megha Hittinhalli, Anubha Kataria, Alisha Singh

1. Junior Resident, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Oxford Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India. 2. Professor and Head, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Oxford Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Oxford Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India. 4. Junior Resident, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Oxford Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India. 5. Senior Resident, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Oxford Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Rajiv Kumar Saxena,
The Oxford Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Yadavanahalli, Attibele, Behind La Classic Hotel, Bengaluru-562107, Karnataka, India.
E-mail: drrajivsaxena60@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Pain from lower abdominal surgeries originates from the abdominal wall incision. The Transversus Abdominis Plane (TAP) is a fascial plane between the internal oblique and the transversus abdominis muscle, which contains the nerve bundles. TAP block involves infiltrating this plane with anaesthetic drugs that block the somatic component of postoperative pain. Traditionally, the TAP block is given by anaesthesiologists as a blind procedure or under Ultrasound (US) guidance. In 2010, an innovative surgical TAP block method was developed, where the surgeon gives TAP block under direct vision before closing the abdomen during abdominal surgery. Many studies have recommended surgical TAP block as an intervention for achieving postoperative pain relief.

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of the surgical TAP block technique for postoperative analgesia following lower abdominal surgeries using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores and by comparing the need for rescue analgesia and the total amount of analgesic drugs utilised within the first 24 hours of surgery.

Materials and Methods: This hospital-based prospective interventional study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at The Oxford Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India, from January 2022 to December 2022. The study participants included 108 women undergoing lower abdominal surgeries under spinal or epidural or combined regional anaesthesia and belonging to the American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification system ASA I or ASA II or ASA IIE. The study group included 54 women who received surgical TAP block with 20 mL 0.25% bupivacaine and 4 mg of dexamethasone, intraoperatively on either side before closure of the abdomen. Postoperative pain was assessed using VAS at regular intervals within 24 hours of surgery. VAS was also recorded whenever the participants demanded rescue analgesia. The control group included 54 women who received intravenous tramadol 50 mg eight hourly for postoperative pain relief, while the study group received rescue analgesia on demand or if the VAS score was recorded as three or more. The time for the first request for rescue analgesia and the total dose of rescue analgesic required in the first 24 hours after surgery were also recorded. Data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0. For inferential statistics, numerical data were analysed by Chi-square test, and for continuous data, the Student’s t-test was used. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: The study group had significantly lower postoperative pain VAS scores when compared to the control group at four hours and beyond time intervals. The mean VAS scores at six hours were 1.85 in the study group and 2.35 in the control group (p-value=0.01), at 24 hours it was 2.04 in the study group and 2.24 in the control group (p-value=0.04). The mean time for the first rescue analgesia in the study group and control group was 11 hours 25 minutes and 2 hours 43 minutes, respectively, and the total tramadol consumption was 77.78±46.24 mg and 117.59±36.55 mg, respectively. Both results were statistically significant (p-value <0.001).

Conclusion: Surgical TAP block significantly delays the need for rescue analgesia and decreases the total analgesia required in the first 24 hours after surgery. It is an effective, safe, and simple technique for achieving postoperative pain relief.

Keywords

Analgesia, Bupivacaine, Dexamethasone, Nerve block, Tramadol, Visual analog scale

Pain from lower abdominal surgeries is mostly somatic in origin, derived from the abdominal wall incision. The Transversus Abdominis Plane (TAP) is a fascial plane between the internal oblique and transversus abdominis muscles, which contains nerve bundles arising from the anterior rami of T6 to L1 (intercostal, subcostal, iliohypogastric, and ilioinguinal nerves) (Table/Fig 1). TAP block involves infiltrating this plane with anaesthetic drugs that block the somatic component of postoperative pain (1). TAP block has been used effectively for a variety of lower abdominal surgeries, including caesarean deliveries, abdominal hysterectomies, and hemicolectomy (2),(3),(4),(5). Ipsilateral TAP block has been used for appendectomy in children (6). Conventionally, TAP block is performed by anaesthesiologists using a blind technique (two ‘pop’ techniques) through the Petit triangle. More recently, US-guided TAP block is being practiced. This procedure requires expert training, a good resolution Ultrasound (US) machine, and it is time-consuming. TAP block technique has the potential to cause complications like intraperitoneal injection, visceral trauma, and liver injury (7).

Owen DJ et al., first described the novel surgical TAP block technique in 2010, wherein the operating surgeon administers TAP block intraoperatively, under direct vision, before closing the abdomen (8). Theoretically, this should reduce the incidence of procedure-related complications as it is performed under direct vision. Few Indian studies have evaluated the efficacy of surgical TAP block with bupivacaine and found it to be an effective means of reducing postoperative pain and reducing the overall opioid requirement after lower abdominal surgery (2),(7).

Dexamethasone is frequently used as an adjuvant to bupivacaine to prolong the duration of peripheral nerve blocks (9). The addition of dexamethasone enhances the effect of anaesthetic drugs, as evidenced by the lower VAS score and a reduction in the total rescue analgesic needed (10). The novelty of this study was the addition of dexamethasone to bupivacaine in TAP block to increase the duration of analgesia.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the surgical TAP block technique for postoperative analgesia following lower abdominal surgeries. The null hypothesis was that surgical TAP block is ineffective and does not reduce postoperative pain. The alternate hypothesis was that surgical TAP block is an effective means of reducing postoperative pain. The objective was to evaluate pain relief using the VAS scores within the first 24 hours of surgery. The need for rescue analgesia and the total analgesic used within the first 24 hours of surgery were evaluated. The ease of performing the surgical TAP block technique was also analysed.

Material and Methods

This hospital-based prospective interventional study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at The Oxford Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India, from January 2022 to December 2022 and was approved by the hospital ethics committee, IEC/TOMCHRC/192/2022. All participants gave written informed consent.

Inclusion criteria: Women undergoing lower abdominal surgeries under spinal or epidural or combined regional anaesthesia and belonging to ASA I or ASA II or ASA IIE were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Women with coagulopathy, thrombocytopenia, or receiving anticoagulation treatment (INR >1.5) or taking Non Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) or opiates 48 hours prior to surgery or having an allergy to the study drug (bupivacaine) were excluded from the study.

Sample size: A sample size of 108 women was calculated based on the study conducted by Sravani P et al., using VAS score for postoperative pain at 12 hours (2).

These 108 women were allocated either to the study or control group using an opaque envelope method. In this single-blinded study, the participants were blinded to their allocation to the study or control group.

Procedure

After completion of the surgical procedure and before closing the abdomen, surgical TAP block was given by the operating surgeon. An assistant elevated the anterior abdominal wall so that the surgeon could visualise and palpate the lateral border of the rectus muscle at the level of the umbilicus, on one side (Table/Fig 2). Safe entry into TAP was ensured by inserting a blunt needle (BD Blunt needle, 18G) through the parietal peritoneum just lateral (1 cm) to the lateral border of the rectus muscle. This was necessary to avoid injury to the inferior epigastric vessels. The needle was gently advanced until there was an appreciable loss of resistance (one ‘pop’), indicating piercing of the transversus muscle fascia. After careful aspiration to ensure that no vascular injury had occurred, 20 mL 0.25% bupivacaine with 4 mg of dexamethasone was injected slowly without any undue resistance (Table/Fig 3). A similar procedure was repeated on the opposite side, and then the surgeon proceeded to close the abdomen. The time of the end of surgery was noted when the last skin suture was secured. Patients in both groups received a diclofenac 100 mg rectal suppository before shifting to the postoperative ward.

The end of surgery time was used as a reference point for the calculation of the time of the request for the first rescue analgesia and the total dose of tramadol used within 24 hours of surgery. Participants in the control group received intravenous injection tramadol 50 mg, eight hourly for pain relief. Study group participants did not receive any further analgesic until they requested it. All participants were monitored postoperatively for the severity of pain, sedation, nausea, and vomiting. Postoperative pain was assessed using VAS Scores (i.e., 0-no pain, 5-worst imaginable pain) at 60 minutes, 2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours, 12 hours, and 24 hours after surgery and SOS whenever a patient demanded analgesia. If the VAS score was 3 or more, rescue analgesia with intravenous injection tramadol 50 mg was administered, and the time for the first analgesic request was recorded. The total dose of rescue analgesics needed within the first 24 hours was also recorded for each participant. The occurrence of any other postoperative complications like haematoma, visceral trauma was also recorded.

Statistical Analysis

Observed data were entered in MS Excel and analysed using SPSS version 25.0. For descriptive analysis, categorical data were analysed using percentages, and continuous data were analysed using the mean and standard deviation. For inferential statistics, numerical data were analysed by the Chi-square test, and for continuous data, Student’s t-test and ANOVA were used. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The study group and control group participants were well matched with regards to their age, height, and weight, and the difference was statistically not significant (Table/Fig 4). Most of the participants undergoing caesarean delivery could not recall their pre-pregnancy weight; hence, BMI could not be assessed.

The study group had significantly lower VAS scores compared to the control group at four hours and beyond time intervals, highlighting the efficacy of longer duration of pain relief with surgical TAP block (Table/Fig 5).

The mean time to request for the first rescue analgesia was significantly delayed in the study group (11 hours 25 minutes) compared to the control group (2 hours 43 minutes) (p-value <0.001). In the control group, the mean total analgesic (tramadol) required within the first 24 hours was 117.59±36.55 mg, whereas in the study group, the requirement was reduced to 77.78±46.24 mg. The total analgesic (tramadol) required for patients in the study group within the first 24 hours of surgery was around 40% less than that utilised in the control group, and this difference was statistically highly significant (p-value <0.001) (Table/Fig 6).

Seven (12.96%) participants from the study group did not require any postoperative rescue analgesia within the first 24 hours of surgery.

There was no difference in the outcome when surgical TAP block was administered by surgeons with varying levels of professional experience (Table/Fig 7). This suggests that surgical TAP block is easy to learn and administer. Surgical TAP block could be performed with ease in all lower abdominal gynecological surgeries. There was no difficulty encountered in administering surgical TAP block in obese patients, as well as in obstetric cases with a lax abdomen. There was no drug-related complications like infection or haematoma or any adverse effects of bupivacaine in the study.

Discussion

The study group had significantly lower VAS scores compared to the control group at four hours and beyond. This was attributed to the efficacy of the surgical TAP block procedure. Similar results were seen in studies conducted by Sravani P et al., and Kakade A and Wagh G both the studies involved surgical TAP block given to 100 women who underwent caesarean delivery (2),(7). Lower postoperative VAS scores were also reported by Geng ZY et al., (11) with the preoperative US-guided TAP block technique and Kahsay DT et al., with the postoperative blind TAP block technique (3). Similar results are also seen in a study conducted by Carney J et al., which included 50 females who underwent elective total abdominal hysterectomy and TAP block using ropivacaine (4). This is a testimony to the efficacy of TAP block in providing postoperative pain relief, irrespective of the technique used.

Low VAS scores signify the patients’ comfort level due to effective postoperative pain relief. This single measure has been shown to encourage early mobilisation and thereby reduce the risk of thromboembolic disease in postoperative patients (12). Hence, a simple intraoperative intervention like the surgical TAP block has a major role to play in postoperative patient care.

In present study, 20 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine with the addition of 4 mg of dexamethasone for giving the surgical TAP block on either side was used. The mean time to request for the first rescue analgesia was 11 hours 25 minutes, while it was 2 hours 43 minutes in the control group. Some other studies have reported varying durations of postoperative analgesia with the TAP block. Kakade A and Wagh G reported the effects of surgical TAP block given using 0.25% bupivacaine alone. They reported the duration of postoperative analgesia in the study group as 5.14±1.63 hours and 2.61±0.89 hours in the control group (7). Sravani P et al., also studied surgical TAP block using 0.25% bupivacaine alone and reported a duration of postoperative analgesia in the study group as 11.7±7.344 hours in the study group and 2.1±1.125 hours in the control group (2). The addition of dexamethasone to bupivacaine in present study enhanced the duration of postoperative analgesia of the surgical TAP block.

Støving K et al., noted that the duration of US-guided unilateral TAP block with 20 mL 7.5 mg/mL ropivacaine was about 10 hours with a wide variation (13). Adding dexamethasone as an adjuvant to ropivacaine was associated with improved postoperative pain relief (10).

The use of opioids for postoperative pain relief is fraught with dose-related adverse side-effects such as nausea, vomiting, and respiratory depression. TAP block is one intervention that can provide effective postoperative pain relief while simultaneously reducing the total dose of opioids needed for pain relief in the postoperative period [11,14]. In present study, the total tramadol required within the first 24 hours of surgery was 117.59±36.55 mg in the control group and 77.78±46.24 mg in the study group. There was a substantial reduction in the total amount of opioid use within 24 hours of surgery in the study group (p-value <0.001). Other studies have also reported a similar reduction in the total amount of opioids required for postoperative pain relief with TAP block. The study by Mrunalini P et al., included 60 adult patients undergoing emergency laparotomy, and the study by Srivastava U et al., included 62 women who underwent caesarean delivery with TAP block, both reporting similar results (Table/Fig 8) (2),(7),(15),(16). Geng ZY et al., also reported similar results when US-guided TAP block was given with ropivacaine (11). A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials concerning the efficacy of TAP block for pain control also reported a similar reduction in opioid consumption and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting after surgery (17).

There are various studies reporting the wide application of TAP block in various abdominal surgeries, such as unilateral TAP block in appendicectomy patients using ropivacaine 0.75% (6). Another study included patients who underwent right hemicolectomy for colonic cancer and open TAP block with 0.5% levobupivacaine (5). These studies also reported a reduction in opioid analgesics used in the first 24 hours postoperatively, and there were no recorded complications attributable to the TAP block procedure.

Studies comparing Surgical TAP Block with US-guided TAP block reported technical difficulties in obese patients with US probe placement and distinction of the abdominal muscle layers. The needle-related visceral organ damage during US-guided TAP block can be negated by visualising the visceral organs during the surgical TAP block procedure (18).

There was no significant difference noted in the outcome of TAP block when administered by surgeons with varying levels of professional experience. This implies that the surgical TAP block technique is easy to learn and perform. Similar results were reported in the study by Sravani P et al., (2). Surgical TAP block with bupivacaine and dexamethasone is a safe and easy method of delivering postoperative analgesia and should be an important component of postoperative multimodal analgesia.

Limitation(s)

Studies suggest that TAP block may provide insufficient analgesia in midline abdominal incisions as the drug distribution may not cross the midline (13). However, this aspect of TAP block was not evaluated in present study as all the patients received bilateral TAP block. Additionally, present study evaluated a single anaesthetic drug with a single dose and concentration for all patients. Larger studies will be needed to evaluate different doses and concentrations of various drugs to determine the ideal combination.

Conclusion

Surgical TAP block is an effective, safe, and easy method for managing postoperative analgesia. It significantly delays the need for rescue analgesia and reduces the total dose of postoperative analgesics required within the first 24 hours of surgery. This low-cost technique of surgical TAP block makes it an essential tool in the armamentarium of every doctor performing lower abdominal surgeries.

References

1.
Dwivedi D, Bhatnagar V, Goje HK, Ray A, Kumar P. Transversus abdominis plane block: A multimodal analgesia technique-our experience. J Mar Med Soc. 2017;19(1):38-42. [crossref]
2.
Sravani P, Indrani C, Rajanna SP, Saxena RK. Efficacy of surgical transversus abdominis plane block in patients undergoing cesarean delivery. J South Asian Feder Obst Gynae. 2020;12(5):302-06. [crossref]
3.
Kahsay DT, Elsholz W, Bahta HZ. Transversus abdominis plane block after caesarean section in an area with limited resources. South Afr J Anaesthe Analge. 2017;23(4):90-95. Doi: 10.1080/22201181.2017.1349361. [crossref]
4.
Carney J, McDonnell JG, Ochana A, Bhinder R, Laffey JG. The transversus abdominis plane block provides effective postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy. Anaesth Analg. 2008;107(6):2056-60. Doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181871313. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Brady RR, Ventham NT, Roberts DM, Graham C, Daniel T. Open transversus abdominis plane block and analgesic requirements in patients following right hemicolectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2012;94(5):327-30. Doi: 10.1308/003588412X13171221589856. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Carney J, Finnerty O, Rauf J, Curley G, McDonnell JG, Laffey JG. Ipsilateral transversus abdominis plane block provides effective analgesia after appendectomy in children: A randomized controlled trial. Anaesth Analg 2010;111(4):998-1003. Doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181ee7bba. [crossref][PubMed]
7.
Kakade A, Wagh G. Evaluate the feasibility of surgical transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia after cesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2019;69(4):330-33. [crossref][PubMed]
8.
Owen DJ, Harrod I, Ford J, Luckas M, Gudimetla V. The surgical transversus abdominis plane block- A novel approach for performing an established technique.BJOG. 2011;118(1):24-27. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Abdelwahab WAEM, Elzahaby HM, ElGendy HAA, Elwahab ATSA, Hussien RM. Safety and efficacy of dexamethasone as an adjuvant to bupivacaine in bilateral transversus abdominis plane block in children undergoing major abdominal surgery. Ain-Shams J Anaesthesiol. 2020;12:52. https://Doi.org/10.1186/s42077-020-00105-7. [crossref]
10.
Kartalov A, Jankulovski N, Kuzmanovska B, Zdravkovska M, Shosholcheva M, Spirovska T, et al. Effect of adding dexamethasone as a ropivacaine adjuvant in ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block for inguinal hernia repair. Pril (Makedon Akad Nauk Umet Odd Med Nauki). 2015;36(3):35-41. Doi: 10.1515/prilozi-2015-0076. PMID: 27442394. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Geng ZY, Zhang Y, Bi H, Zhang D, Li Z, Jiang L, et al. Addition of preoperative transversus abdominis plane block to multimodal analgesia in open gynecological surgery: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Anaesthesiol. 2023;23(1):21. https://Doi.org/10.1186/s12871-023-01981-w. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
Gadsden J, Hart S, Santos AC. Post-cesarean delivery analgesia. Anaesth Analg. 2005;101(5 Suppl):S62-69. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Støving K, Rothe C, Rosenstock CV, Aasvang EK, Lundstrøm LH, Lange KH. Cutaneous sensory block area, muscle-relaxing effect, and block duration of the transversus abdominis plane block: A randomized, blinded, and placebo-controlled study in healthy volunteers. Reg Anaesth Pain Med. 2015;40(4):355-62. Doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000252. PMID: 25923818. [crossref][PubMed]
14.
Young MJ, Gorlin AW, Modest VE, Quraishi SA. Clinical implications of the transversus abdominis plane block in adults. Anaesthesiol Res Pract. 2012;2012:731645. Doi: 10.1155/2012/731645. Epub 2012 Jan 19. PMID: 22312327; PMCID: PMC3270549. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Mrunalini P, Rama Raju NV, Nath VN, Saheb SM. Efficacy of transversus abdominis plane block in patients undergoing emergency laparotomies. Anaesth Essays Res. 2014;8(3):377-82. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Srivastava U, Verma S, Singh TK, Gupta A, Saxsena A, Jagar KD, et al. Efficacy of trans abdominis plane block for post cesarean delivery analgesia: A double-blind, randomized trial. Saudi J Anaesth. 2015;9(3):298-302.[crossref][PubMed]
17.
Wang W, Wang L, Gao Y. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials concerning the efficacy of transversus abdominis plane block for pain control after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Front Surg. 2021;8:700318. Doi: 10.3389/ fsurg.2021.700318. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
Urfaliog? lu A, Bakacak M, Boran ÖF, Yazar FM, Arslan M, Öksüz H. Ultrasound- guided versus surgical transversus abdominis plane block in obese patients following cesarean section: A prospective randomised study. Rev Bras Anestesiol [Internet]. 2017;67(5):480-86. Available from: https://Doi.org/10.1016/j.bjane.2016.07.009.[crossref]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2023/65598.18477

Date of Submission: May 25, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Jul 18, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Aug 11, 2023
Date of Publishing: Sep 01, 2023

Author declaration:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: May 25, 2023
• Manual Googling: Jul 28, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Aug 08, 2023 (14%)

Etymology: Author Origin

Emendations: 6

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com