Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38253697›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2024

Laparoscopic vs. ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Fabiano Iaquinandi, Francesco Mongelli, Dimitri Christoforidis, Agnese Cianfarani, Ramon Pini, Andrea Saporito, Sotirios Georgios Popeskou, Davide La Regina

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. 2025 Delphi consensus on robotic ventral mesh rectopexy.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors.

Fabiano Iaquinandi *Department of Surgery, Ospedale Regionale di Bellinzona e Valli, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland.
Francesco Mongelli *Department of Surgery, Ospedale Regionale di Bellinzona e Valli, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland. francesco.mongelli@mail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-8824-651X
Dimitri ChristoforidisFaculty of Medicine, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland.
Agnese CianfaraniDepartment of Surgery, Ospedale Regionale di Lugano, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland.
Ramon PiniDepartment of Surgery, Ospedale Regionale di Bellinzona e Valli, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland.
Andrea SaporitoDepartment of Anesthesia, Ospedale Regionale di Bellinzona e Valli, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland.
Sotirios Georgios Popeskou *Faculty of Medicine, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland.
Davide La Regina *Department of Surgery, Ospedale Regionale di Bellinzona e Valli, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) is effective for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. However, evidence regarding the optimal delivery method, either laparoscopic (L-TAPB) or ultrasound-guided (U-TAPB) is lacking. Our study aimed to compare the effectiveness of these delivery methods.

methodsWe carried out a literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases to include randomized studies comparing patients receiving either L-TAPB or U-TAPB during minimally invasive colorectal surgery. The primary endpoint was opioid consumption in the first 24 h after surgery. Risk of bias was assessed with the RoB-2 tool. Effect size was estimated for each study with 95% confidence interval and overall effect measure was estimated with a random effect model.

resultsThe literature search revealed 294 articles, of which four randomized trials were eligible. A total of 359 patients were included, 176 received a L-TAPB and 183 received a U-TAPB. We established the non-inferiority of L-TAPB, as the absolute difference of - 2.6 morphine-mg (95%CI - 8.3 to 3.0) was below the pooled non-inferiority threshold of 8.1 morphine-mg (low certainty level). No difference in opioid consumption was noted at 2, 6, 12, and 48 h (low to very low certainty level). Postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting were similar between groups at different timepoints (low to very low certainty level). No TAPB-related complications were recorded. Finally, the length of hospital stay was similar between groups.

conclusionFor postoperative multimodal analgesia both L-TAPB and U-TAPB may result in little to no difference in outcome in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Registration Prospero CRD42023421141.

Indexed as

Abdominal MusclesLaparoscopyNerve BlockPostoperative PainUltrasonography, InterventionalAnalgesics, OpioidColorectal SurgeryHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnalgesics, OpioidAbdominal musclesColorectal surgeryLocal anestheticsMeta-analysisNeuromuscular block

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.