Are the Analgesic Effects of Morphine Added to Transversus Abdominis Plane Block Systemic or Regional? A Randomized Clinical Trial

被引:0
|
作者
Onay, Meryem [1 ]
Kaya, Osman [2 ]
Telli, Elcin [3 ]
Bilir, Ayten [1 ]
Gulec, Mehmet Sacit [1 ]
机构
[1] Eskisehir Osmangazi Univ, Fac Med, Dept Anesthesiol & Reanimat, Eskisehir, Turkiye
[2] Nizip State Hosp, Dept Anesthesiol & Reanimat, Gaziantep, Turkiye
[3] Eskisehir Osmangazi Univ, Fac Med, Dept Gynecol Oncol, Eskisehir, Turkiye
来源
PAIN RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT | 2025年 / 2025卷 / 01期
关键词
adjuvant; morphine; transversus abdominis plane block; POSTOPERATIVE ANALGESIA; CESAREAN-SECTION; ROPIVACAINE; BUPIVACAINE; EFFICACY; QUALITY; PAIN;
D O I
10.1155/prm/9187270
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of the transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block with the addition of morphine to bupivacaine and the TAP block with bupivacaine plus intramuscular (IM) morphine. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of morphine administered with the TAP block on postoperative opioid consumption and pain scores and, secondarily, to determine whether the effect was systemic or local.Methods: This prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial included 52 patients. In the IM group, morphine at a dose of 0.1 mg/kg based on ideal body weight (IBW) was administered IM. In addition, a bilateral TAP block was performed under ultrasound guidance using a total of 40 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine, with 20 mL injected on each side. In the TAP group, an ultrasound-guided TAP block, including a total of 40 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine and 0.1 mg/kg morphine according to the IBW of patients, was administered bilaterally.Results: Total morphine consumption 24 h was 19.08 + 11.35 in the IM group and 11.81 + 7.02 in the TAP group, with an estimated difference in means of 7.2 (95% CI: 2.0, 12.5; p = 0.008). The morphine consumption after 6, 12, and 24 h was lower in the TAP group than in the IM group (p = 0.033, p = 0.003, and p = 0.008, respectively). The VAS scores at rest and during movement did not differ between the two groups. The total 24-h ondansetron consumption was higher in the IM group (p = 0.046). The postoperative heart rates, blood pressure, and peripheral oxygen saturation at 0, 1, 6, 12, and 24 h did not differ significantly between the groups.Conclusions: The addition of morphine to the TAP block may be an effective method for postoperative analgesia in gynecologic surgery and may not increase systemic side effects, due to the possible local effects of morphine administered interfacial.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05420337
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Postoperative Analgesic Effectiveness of Ultrasound Guided Transversus Abdominis Plane Block in Patients with C section
    Azam, Muhammad
    Rashid, Muhammad
    Tariq, Noman
    Butt, Tanveer Akhtar
    Firdous, Tanzeela
    Yameen, Usman
    PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL & HEALTH SCIENCES, 2020, 14 (03): : 511 - 514
  • [22] Analgesic efficacy of trocar sites local anesthetic infiltration with and without transversus abdominis plane block after laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized trial
    Huang, Shenghui
    Mi, Shengquan
    He, Yingyan
    Li, Yi
    Wang, Shuanke
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2016, 9 (03): : 6518 - 6524
  • [23] Clinical analgesic efficacy of dexamethasone as a local anesthetic adjuvant for transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block: A meta-analysis
    Chen, Qi
    An, Ran
    Zhou, Ju
    Yang, Bin
    PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (06):
  • [24] Randomized controlled double-blind trial of transversus abdominis plane block versus trocar site infiltration in gynecologic laparoscopy
    El Hachem, Lena
    Small, Ethan
    Chung, Peter
    Moshier, Erin L.
    Friedman, Kathryn
    Fenske, Suzanne S.
    Gretz, Herbert F., III
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2015, 212 (02) : 182.e1 - 182.e9
  • [25] Transversus abdominis plane block after ambulatory total laparoscopic hysterectomy: randomized controlled trial
    Calle, Gustavo A.
    Lopez, Claudia C.
    Sanchez, Enrique
    De Los Rios, Jose F.
    Vasquez, Elsa M.
    Serna, Eduardo
    Arango, Adriana M.
    Castaneda, Juan D.
    Vasquez, Ricardo A.
    Gonzalez, Antonio
    Escobar, Alvaro
    Almanza, Luis A.
    ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2014, 93 (04) : 345 - 350
  • [26] Transversus abdominis plane block in robotic gynecologic oncology: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial
    Hotujec, B. T.
    Spencer, R. J.
    Donnelly, M. J.
    Bruggink, S. M.
    Rose, S. L.
    Al-Niaimi, A.
    Chappell, R.
    Stewart, S. L.
    Kushner, D. M.
    GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2015, 136 (03) : 460 - 465
  • [27] Analgesic Efficacy of Transverse Abdominis Plane Block and Quadratus Lumborum Block in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Randomized Double-Blinded Clinical Trial
    Xue, Qi
    Chu, Zhaoxia
    Zhu, Junjun
    Zhang, Xiaoyan
    Chen, Hong
    Liu, Wu
    Jia, Benli
    Zhang, Ye
    Wang, Yong
    Huang, Chunxia
    Hu, Xianwen
    PAIN AND THERAPY, 2022, 11 (02) : 613 - 626
  • [28] Ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block using ropivacaine and dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing caesarian sections to relieve post-operative analgesia: A randomized controlled clinical trial
    Qian, Haitao
    Zhang, Qingwei
    Zhu, Pin
    Zhang, Xiaobao
    Tian, Liang
    Feng, Jiying
    Wu, Yong
    Zhao, Zhibin
    Luan, Hengfei
    EXPERIMENTAL AND THERAPEUTIC MEDICINE, 2020, 20 (02) : 1163 - 1168
  • [29] Surgical transversus abdominis plane block with liposomal bupivacaine at cesarean: a pilot randomized trial
    Antony, Kathleen M.
    McDonald, Ryan C.
    Gaston, Luther
    Hetzel, Scott
    Li, Zhanhai
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY MFM, 2024, 6 (02)
  • [30] Open transversus abdominis plane block and analgesic requirements in patients following right hemicolectomy
    Brady, R. R.
    Ventham, N. T.
    Roberts, D. M.
    Graham, C.
    Daniel, T.
    ANNALS OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND, 2012, 94 (05) : 327 - 330