Istanbul Prof. Dr. Cemil Tascioglu City Hospital, Sisli, Istanbul.
Siirt Kurtalan State Hospital, Siirt, Turkey.
Braz J Anesthesiol. 2021 Sep-Oct;71(5):505-510. doi: 10.1016/j.bjane.2020.11.004. Epub 2021 Feb 10.
We aimed to compare the analgesic effects of both posterior (type 2) Quadratus Lumborum Block (QLB) and Transversus Abdominis Plane Block (TAPB) compared to spinal anesthesia alone for postoperative pain management in inguinal hernia repair.
This study enrolled 63 patients scheduled for open inguinal hernia repair. The eligibility criteria were undergoing elective unilateral inguinal hernia repair surgery, having an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I, II, or III, and not suffering from any chronic pain condition. Group S patients received spinal anesthetics and no additional analgesic treatments. Group T patients received TAPB, and Group Q patients received QLB as analgesic technique in addition to spinal anesthetics.
The pain scores at 6 hours (VAS 6) and 24 hours (VAS 24) were significantly different between groups (p < 0.01). Additionally, the sensory and motor block levels were significantly different between groups (p < 0.05). Multiple comparison tests showed that patients in Group Q had significantly higher sensory and motor block levels (p < 0.01 compared with Group S; p < 0.05 compared with Group T). Opioid consumption was significantly different between Groups Q and S (p < 0.01) after surgery.
Our findings show that both blocks are similarly effective for the management of postoperative pain compared to spinal anesthesia alone for inguinal hernia repair. We found that QLB resulted in a significant cranial spread compared to TAPB. Opioid consumption in QLB was significantly lower than that in controls but similar to that in TAPB.
本研究旨在比较后路(2 型)竖脊肌平面阻滞(QLB)和腹横肌平面阻滞(TAPB)与单纯椎管内麻醉在腹股沟疝修补术后疼痛管理中的镇痛效果。
本研究纳入了 63 例拟行开放腹股沟疝修补术的患者。入选标准为择期单侧腹股沟疝修补手术、美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)体格状况 I、II 或 III 级、无慢性疼痛病史。S 组患者接受椎管内麻醉和其他镇痛治疗。T 组患者接受 TAPB,Q 组患者在接受椎管内麻醉的同时接受 QLB 作为镇痛技术。
术后 6 小时(VAS 6)和 24 小时(VAS 24)的疼痛评分在组间有显著差异(p < 0.01)。此外,各组间的感觉和运动阻滞水平也有显著差异(p < 0.05)。多重比较显示 Q 组患者的感觉和运动阻滞水平显著高于 S 组(与 S 组相比,p < 0.01;与 T 组相比,p < 0.05)。术后 Q 组和 S 组的阿片类药物消耗量有显著差异(p < 0.01)。
与单纯椎管内麻醉相比,两种阻滞方法在腹股沟疝修补术后的镇痛效果相似。与 TAPB 相比,QLB 表现出显著的颅神经阻滞效果。QLB 的阿片类药物消耗量明显低于对照组,但与 TAPB 相似。