Trial reportBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Comparison between epidural technique and mid-axillary ultrasound-guided TAP block for postoperative analgesia of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a quasi-randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches on Patient Recovery: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOur goal was to evaluate whether TAP block offers the same analgesic pain control compared to epidural technique in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy surgery through the morphine consumption in the first 48 hours.
methodsIn this study, 45 patients were recruited and assigned to either TAP or epidural. The main study outcome was morphine consumption during the first 48 hours after surgery. Other data recorded were pain at rest and upon movement, technique-related complications and adverse effects, surgical and postoperative complications, length of surgery, need for rescue analgesia, postoperative nausea and vomiting, start of intake, sitting and perambulation, first flatus, and length of in-hospital stay.
resultsFrom a total of 45 patients, two were excluded due to reconversion to open surgery (TAP group = 20; epidural group = 23). There were no differences in morphine consumption (0.96 vs. 0.8 mg; p = 0.78); mean postoperative VAS pain scores at rest (0.7 vs. 0.5; p = 0.72); or upon movement (1.6 vs. 1.6; p = 0.32); in the TAP vs. epidural group, respectively. Sitting and perambulation began sooner in TAP group (19 vs. 22 hours, p = 0.03; 23 vs. 32 hours, p = 0.01; respectively). The epidural group had more technique-related adverse effects.
conclusionTAP blocks provide the same analgesic quality with optimal pain control than epidural technique, with less adverse effects.
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.