Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26099316›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of colorectal disease2015

Transversus abdominis plane blockade in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a double-blind randomized clinical trial.

Stephen Ridley Smith, Brian Draganic, Peter Pockney, Phillip Holz, Ryan Holmes, Brendan Mcmanus, Rosemary Carroll

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of colorectal disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05224089 (Bilateral Mid-Abdominal Transverse Abdominis Plane and Rectus Sheath Blocks Comparing The Use of Liposomal Bupivacaine/Bupivacaine vs. Regular Bupivacaine in Laparoscopic Colectomy Procedures.), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05224089 phase4recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Bilateral Mid-Abdominal Transverse Abdominis Plane and Rectus Sheath Blocks Comparing The Use of Liposomal Bupivacaine/Bupivacaine vs. Regular Bupivacaine in Laparoscopic Colectomy Procedures.

TypeinterventionalSponsorHartford HospitalRan2022 to 2026Enrolled114ConditionsBowel DiseaseArmsLiposomal Bupivicaine/Bupivacaine Admixture, Bupivacaine HCL
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Effect of Transversus Abdominis Plane Block on Postoperative Pain after Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2018
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Stephen Ridley SmithDivision of Surgery, John Hunter Hospital, University of Newcastle, Locked Bag 1, Hunter Regional Mail Centre, Newcastle, NSW, 2310, Australia, steve_srs@hotmail.com.
Brian Draganic
Peter Pockney
Phillip Holz
Ryan Holmes
Brendan Mcmanus
Rosemary Carroll

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAdequate postoperative analgesia is essential for recovery following colorectal surgery. Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks have been found to be beneficial in improving pain following a variety of abdominal operations. The objective of this study was to determine if TAP blocks are useful in improving postoperative recovery following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. MATERIALS AND

methodsA prospective double-blind randomized clinical trial, involving 226 consecutive patients having laparoscopic colorectal surgery, was performed by a university colorectal surgical department. Patients were randomized to either TAP blockade using ultrasound guidance, or control, with the primary outcome being postoperative pain, as measured by analgesic consumption. Secondary outcomes assessed were pain visual analogue score (VAS), respiratory function, time to return of gut function, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and patient satisfaction.

resultsA total of 142 patients were followed up to trial completion (74 controls, 68 interventions). Patients were well matched with regard to demographics. No complications occurred as a result of the intervention of TAP blockade. There was no difference between groups with regards to analgesic consumption (161 mEq morphine control vs 175 mEq morphine TAP; p = 0.596). There was no difference between the two groups with regards to the secondary outcomes of daily VAS, respiratory outcome, time to return of gut function, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and patient satisfaction.

conclusionWe conclude that TAP blockade appears to be a safe intervention but confers no specific advantage following laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Indexed as

Abdominal MusclesAbdominal WallAfferent PathwaysAgedAmidesAnalgesics, OpioidAnesthetics, LocalColonic DiseasesDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFentanylGastrointestinal TractHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleAmidesAnalgesics, OpioidAnesthetics, LocalFentanylOxycodoneRopivacaine

Identifiers

PMID26099316

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.