Introduction
Optimal pain control after major surgery contributes to a patient’s recovery and satisfaction. The use of liposomal bupivacaine in subcostal transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks for postoperative pain control after robot assisted abdominal surgery has yet to be studied.
Methods
We conducted a prospective randomized controlled observer-blinded study comparing bilateral subcostal TAP blocks with bupivacaine to bilateral subcostal TAP blocks with liposomal bupivacaine. These were performed prior to the patient undergoing robot assisted hysterectomy. The patients’ pain scores, opioid use, side effects, and satisfaction were followed for 72 h after injection.
Results
Total opioid use in the first 72 h after injection was significantly decreased in the group that received liposomal bupivacaine compared to bupivacaine. Patients in the liposomal bupivacaine group had significantly lower maximal pain scores at all time periods studied as well as decreased incidence of nausea/vomiting. There was a trend toward decreased length of stay in the liposomal bupivacaine group.
Conclusion
Subcostal TAP blocks with liposomal bupivacaine decreased the total opioid requirement for the first 72 h after robot assisted hysterectomy when compared to subcostal TAP blocks with bupivacaine.
Original ArticleUltrasound-guided subcostal transversus abdominis plane blocks with liposomal bupivacaine vs. non-liposomal bupivacaine for postoperative pain control after laparoscopic hand-assisted donor nephrectomy: a prospective randomised observer-blinded study
SummaryWe compared the effect of subcostal transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block with liposomal bupivacaine to TAP block with non-liposomal bupivacaine on postoperative maximal pain scores in patients undergoing donor nephrectomy. Sixty patients were prospectively randomly assigned to receive ultrasound-guided bilateral TAPs with either 1.3% liposomal bupivacaine and normal saline or 0.
Editor’s Perspective
What We Already Know about This Topic
What This Article Tells Us That Is New
Background
Complications in pediatric regional anesthesia are rare, so a large sample size is necessary to quantify risk. The Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network contains data on more than 100,000 blocks administered at more than 20 children’s hospitals. This study analyzed the risk of major complications associated with regional anesthesia in children.
Methods
This is a prospective, observational study of routine clinical practice. Data were collected on every regional block placed by an anesthesiologist at participating institutions and were uploaded to a secure database. The data were audited at multiple points for accuracy.
Results
There were no permanent neurologic deficits reported (95% CI, 0 to 0.4:10,000). The risk of transient neurologic deficit was 2.4:10,000 (95% CI, 1.6 to 3.6:10,000) and was not different between peripheral and neuraxial blocks. The risk of severe local anesthetic systemic toxicity was 0.76:10,000 (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.6:10,000); the majority of cases occurred in infants. There was one epidural abscess reported (0.76:10,000, 95% CI, 0 to 4.8:10,000). The incidence of cutaneous infections was 0.5% (53:10,000, 95% CI, 43 to 64:10,000). There were no hematomas associated with neuraxial catheters (95% CI, 0 to 3.5:10,000), but one epidural hematoma occurred with a paravertebral catheter. No additional risk was observed with placing blocks under general anesthesia. The most common adverse events were benign catheter-related failures (4%).
Conclusions
The data from this study demonstrate a level of safety in pediatric regional anesthesia that is comparable to adult practice and confirms the safety of placing blocks under general anesthesia in children.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.