Trial reportJournal of anesthesia2020
Continuous basal infusion versus programmed intermittent bolus for quadratus lumborum block after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a randomized-controlled, double-blind study.
Trial report in Journal of anesthesia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuadratus lumborum block (QLB) has recently attracted attention as a part of multimodal analgesia after abdominal surgery. It has been shown that programmed intermittent boluses of local anesthetic can produce better analgesia and wider sensory blockade compared with continuous basal infusion with some peripheral nerve blocks. The present study was conducted to see if this theory holds true for QLB in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
methodsFifty patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were divided into 2 groups to receive continuous basal infusion (group C) or programmed intermittent boluses (group PIB) of local anesthetic. After surgery, patients received the posterior approach to QLB and a catheter was introduced bilaterally. Patients in group C received a continuous infusion of 0.15% levobupivacaine at 3 ml/h, and those in group PIB received a bolus of 12 ml every 4 h. All patients received intravenous patient-controlled analgesia using fentanyl. Measurements were taken for cumulative fentanyl consumption, pain scores, cutaneous sensory blockade, analgesic requirements, and adverse events for 46 h.
resultsThe primary outcome of cumulative fentanyl consumption at 22 h showed no significant difference between the groups [group C: 11.9 (11.2-15.5) µg/kg (median (interquartile range)) and group PIB: 12.3 (11.6-15.3), p = 0.473]. Pain scores, demands for rescue analgesics, and spread of cutaneous sensory blockade were similar for the two groups.
conclusionProgrammed intermittent boluses of local anesthetic for continuous QLB did not produce better analgesia or wider sensory blockade compared with continuous basal infusion in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.