4.4 Article

Comparison between adenosine and magnesium sulphate as adjuvants for transversus abdominis plane block: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Journal

MINERVA ANESTESIOLOGICA
Volume 84, Issue 3, Pages 304-310

Publisher

EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA
DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.17.11931-0

Keywords

Adenosine; Bupivacaine; Magnesium; Abdominal muscles; Autonomic nerve block

Funding

  1. Minoufiya University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Various adjuvants have been employed during different nerve blocks. We aimed to evaluate the effect of adding adenosine versus magnesium sulfate to bupivacaine on the quality and duration of transversus abdominis plane (TATAP) block. METHODS: Participants were randomized to TAP block using either 20 mL of bupivacaine hydrochloride 0.375% + 12 mg adenosine in 2 mL of saline 0.9% (adenosine group), 20 mL of bupivacaine hydrochloride 0.375% + 500 mg magnesium sulphate in 2 mL saline 0.9% (magnesium group) or 20 mL of bupivacaine hydrochloride 0.375% + 2 mL saline 0.9% (control group). Primary outcome measure included postoperative pain as assessed by Visual Analog Scale (VASVAS) for pain scoring on movement and secondary outcomes included analgesia duration, postoperative morphine need and any adverse effects. RESULTS: VAS in adenosine and magnesium groups was significantly less than in control group at 6 and 12 hours post-operatively whereas it was comparable in adenosine and magnesium groups at all time points. Analgesia duration was significantly longer in adenosine and magnesium groups in comparison to the control group and it was relatively longer in the magnesium group when compared to adenosine group (401 vs. 447 vs. 320 minutes in adenosine, magnesium and control groups, respectively; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Both adenosine and magnesium improved the quality and duration of TATAP block, but the duration was relatively longer with magnesium.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available