SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) has become a fundamental component of multimodal analgesia for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Previous meta-analyses comparing laparoscopic-guided TAPB (Lap-TAPB) with ultrasound-guided TAPB (US-TAPB) were constrained by small sample sizes and lacked integration of emerging evidence from recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Given the increasing number of studies published since 2023, an updated review is warranted. Objectives: To conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing Lap-TAPB with US-TAPB in terms of analgesic efficacy and perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched, from their inception until November 2025, for studies evaluating Lap-TAPB versus US-TAPB and reporting postoperative analgesic or clinical outcomes following the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was 24-h postoperative opioid consumption, whereas the secondary outcomes included pain scores at 24 h (at rest), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), operative time and complications. Results: Five studies involving 585 patients were included in this review. No significant differences were observed in 24-h postoperative opioid consumption with Lap-TAPB (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.39 to 0.08, Conclusion: Lap-TAPB did not result in significantly lower 24-h postoperative opioid consumption, pain scores at 24 h (at rest), PONV incidence, operative time and complications compared to US-TAPB. However, it eliminates the need for ultrasound devices while decreasing the logistical complexity of the procedure.
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.