4.5 Article

Quadratus Lumborum Block Versus Transversus Abdominis Plane Block in Children Undergoing Low Abdominal Surgery A Randomized Controlled Trial

Journal

REGIONAL ANESTHESIA AND PAIN MEDICINE
Volume 42, Issue 5, Pages 674-679

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000645

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Objectives: Truncal blocks have a place within multimodal analgesia techniques in abdominal surgery. The quadratus lumborum block is a new abdominal truncal block used for somatic analgesia of both the upper and lower abdomen. In this prospective, double-blind, randomized study, we aimed to compare quadratus lumborum block and transversus abdominis plane block in pediatric patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery. Methods: Fifty-three children undergoing unilateral inguinal hernia repair or orchiopexy surgery were randomized into 2 groups: transversus abdominis plane block and quadratus lumborum block. All blocks were performed under general anesthesia before surgery. Pain levels were assessed using an FLACC (Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability) scale. Results: The study included 50 patients, after excluding 3 patients who were not eligible. The number of patients who required analgesia in the first 24 hours postoperatively was significantly lower in the quadratus lumborum block group (P < 0.05). In the quadratus lumborum block group, the postoperative 30-minute and 1-, 2-, 4-, 6-, 12-, and 24-hour FLACC scores were lower compared with those of the transversus abdominis plane block group (P < 0.05). Parent satisfaction scores were higher in the quadratus lumborum block group (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The results of this study showed that in pediatric patients undergoing unilateral inguinal hernia repair or orchiopexy the quadratus lumborum block provided longer and more effective postoperative analgesia compared with the transversus abdominis plane block.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available