Trial reportInternational journal of colorectal disease2021
Continuous transversus abdominis plane blocks in patients undergoing minimally invasive colorectal surgery: a randomized pilot study.
Trial report in International journal of colorectal disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of sleep interventions combined with enhanced nutritional support on sleep quality, nutritional status, pain management, psychological well-being, and quality of life in postoperative colon cancer patients.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Trial
- Association of transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) with postoperative delirium (POD) in elderly patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery: a retrospective cohort study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Optimizing postoperative recovery in colorectal cancer patients through integrated psychological and nutritional interventions.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTransversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks are used in an attempt to decrease narcotic use and its subsequent consequences. The primary goal of this study was to see if TAP blocks decreased narcotic use in patients undergoing minimally invasive colorectal surgery.
methodsA randomized pilot study was conducted. The amount of narcotic used examined in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) was collected for the first 4 post-operative days (PODs). Demographic data, length of stay (LOS), readmission rate, and 90-day mortality was also examined. Statistical analysis of the data was performed with a p < 0.05 determined to be significant.
resultsEighty-eight patients were included. Forty-seven were randomized to the TAP group and 41 to the no TAP group. There was no difference in age, race, gender, indication for operation, or Charlson Comorbidity Index (p > 0.05). The median MME for each POD was similar for POD 1 (22.5 vs 37.5; p = 0.054), POD 3 (15 vs 22.5; p = 0.48), and POD 4 (22.5 vs 10.5; p = 0.42) on bivariate analysis. On POD 2, the TAP group had significantly less narcotic intake than the no TAP group (17.5 vs 30; p = 0.047). However, on multivariate analysis when controlling for other variables, there was no statistical difference between the groups. Median LOS was 3 days for both groups. Readmissions, post-operative complications, and mortality were also similar between the two groups (p > 0.05).
conclusionOur findings indicate that continuous TAP blocks do not decrease the amount of MME used during the first 4 post-operative days compared to patient receiving traditional pain control measures.
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.