Title |
Comparison of ultrasound-guided posterior transversus abdominis plane block and lateral transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing cesarean section: a randomized double-blind clinical trial study
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, December 2017
|
DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s146970 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Seyed Hamid Reza Faiz, Mahmoud Reza Alebouyeh, Pooya Derakhshan, Farnad Imani, Poupak Rahimzadeh, Maryam Ghaderi Ashtiani |
Abstract |
Due to the importance of pain control after abdominal surgery, several methods such as transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block are used to reduce the pain after surgery. TAP blocks can be performed using various ultrasound-guided approaches. Two important approaches to do this are ultrasound-guided lateral and posterior approaches. This study aimed to compare the two approaches of ultrasound-guided lateral and posterior TAP blocks to control pain after cesarean section. In this double-blind clinical trial study, 76 patients scheduled for elective cesarean section were selected and randomly divided into two groups of 38 and underwent spinal anesthesia. For pain management after the surgery, one group underwent lateral TAP block and the other group underwent posterior TAP block using 20cc of ropivacaine 0.2% on both sides. Pain intensity was evaluated based on Numerical Analog Scale (NAS) at rest and when coughing, 2, 4, 6, 12, 24 and 36 hours after surgery. The pain at rest in the posterior group at all hours post surgery was lower than the lateral group, especially at 6, 12 and 24 hours after the surgery and the difference was statistically significant (p=0.03, p<0.004, p=0.001). The results of this study show that ultrasound-guided posterior TAP block compared with the lateral TAP block was more effective in pain control after cesarean section. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 29% |
Canada | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 14 | 21% |
Other | 7 | 10% |
Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 7% |
Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
Other | 14 | 21% |
Unknown | 16 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 55% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
Psychology | 1 | 1% |
Other | 3 | 4% |
Unknown | 20 | 30% |