Department of Anesthesia and Surgical Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, 2 El-Gomhouria Street, Mansoura, 35516, Egypt.
BMC Anesthesiol. 2023 Mar 17;23(1):82. doi: 10.1186/s12871-023-02043-x.
BACKGROUND: Surgical repair of inguinal hernia is one of the most common day case surgeries in the pediatric population. This study compared the postoperative analgesic effects of transversalis fascia plane block (TFB) versus quadratus lumborum block (QLB) in children scheduled for open unilateral inguinal herniotomy. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled non-inferiority study, 76 eligible patients were recruited. Patients were randomly allocated to either the TFB or QLB group. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients who needed rescue analgesia during the first postoperative 12 h. The secondary outcomes were, the time needed to perform the block, the postoperative FLACC score, intraoperative heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP). RESULTS: The proportion of patients who required a rescue analgesic was comparable (p = 1.000) between the TFB group (7/34, 20.5%) and the QLB group (6/34, 17.6%). The median [Q1-Q3] time needed to perform the block (min) was significantly longer (p < 0.001) in the QLB group (5[5]) compared with the TFB group. The postoperative FLACC pain scale was comparable between the two groups at all-time points of assessment. There is no difference regarding the heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure values at the time points that the values were recorded. (P > 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Both TFB and QLB similarly provide good postoperative analgesia by reducing the proportion of patients who required rescue analgesia, pain scores and analgesic consumption. Moreover, TFB is technically easier than QLB.
背景:腹股沟疝修补术是小儿最常见的日间手术之一。本研究比较了腹横筋膜平面阻滞(TFB)与腰方肌阻滞(QLB)在小儿开放性单侧腹股沟疝修补术中的术后镇痛效果。
方法:这是一项前瞻性、随机、双盲、对照非劣效性研究,共纳入 76 名符合条件的患者。患者被随机分配到 TFB 或 QLB 组。主要结局指标是术后 12 小时内需要补救镇痛的患者比例。次要结局指标为:阻滞所需时间、术后 FLACC 评分、术中心率(HR)和平均动脉压(MAP)。
结果:需要补救镇痛的患者比例在 TFB 组(7/34,20.5%)和 QLB 组(6/34,17.6%)之间无差异(p=1.000)。QLB 组(5[5])阻滞所需的中位数[Q1-Q3]时间明显长于 TFB 组(p<0.001)。两组在所有评估时间点的术后 FLACC 疼痛评分均无差异。记录时的心率和平均动脉血压值无差异。(P>0.005)。
结论:TFB 和 QLB 同样通过减少需要补救镇痛的患者比例、疼痛评分和镇痛药物消耗,提供良好的术后镇痛效果。此外,TFB 在技术上比 QLB 更简单。
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2023-2
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2022-4