Introduction and Objective: TAP block has gained popularity to provide postoperative analgesia after abdominal surgery but its advantage over epidural analgesia is disputed. For lower abdominal surgeries, epidural analgesia has been the gold standard and time-tested technique for providing postoperative analgesia, but contraindications for the same would warrant need for other equally good analgesic techniques. The objective of this study is to compare the analgesic efficacy of both the techniques. Materials and Methods:Eighty patients in the ASA I-II risk group, undergone an elective C-section, were randomly assigned to the study. In the TAP group, before the C-section, a single-dose spinal anaesthesia was performed by administering 3 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine to the patients when they were in the sitting position. After the C-section, an ultrasound-guided bilateral TAP block was performed in these patients in the recovery room for postoperative analgesia. In the single-dose EPI group, the patients received 16 cc of isobaric bupivacaine, 3 mg of morphine, and 50 mcg of fentanyl, making a total volume of 20 cc and being administered to the epidural space. Results: A higher level of patient satisfaction was observed in the EPI group (p=0.003). The amount (mg) of total analgesics received by the patients in the first 24 hours of the postoperative period was statistically significantly higher (p=0.021) in the TAP group compared to the EPI group. The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of the EPI group were significantly lower compared to that of the TAP group (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The epidural anaesthesia is still the golden standard to achieve a postcaesarean analgesia. Epidural anaesthesia is a considerably effective method in controlling the postoperative pain. We are of the opinion that epidural anaesthesia should be preferred in the first place to achieve a successful postcaesarean analgesia as it provides more effective pain control.
RCT Entities:
Introduction and Objective: TAP block has gained popularity to provide postoperative analgesia after abdominal surgery but its advantage over epidural analgesia is disputed. For lower abdominal surgeries, epidural analgesia has been the gold standard and time-tested technique for providing postoperative analgesia, but contraindications for the same would warrant need for other equally good analgesic techniques. The objective of this study is to compare the analgesic efficacy of both the techniques. Materials and Methods: Eighty patients in the ASA I-II risk group, undergone an elective C-section, were randomly assigned to the study. In the TAP group, before the C-section, a single-dose spinal anaesthesia was performed by administering 3 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine to the patients when they were in the sitting position. After the C-section, an ultrasound-guided bilateral TAP block was performed in these patients in the recovery room for postoperative analgesia. In the single-dose EPI group, the patients received 16 cc of isobaric bupivacaine, 3 mg of morphine, and 50 mcg of fentanyl, making a total volume of 20 cc and being administered to the epidural space. Results: A higher level of patient satisfaction was observed in the EPI group (p=0.003). The amount (mg) of total analgesics received by the patients in the first 24 hours of the postoperative period was statistically significantly higher (p=0.021) in the TAP group compared to the EPI group. The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of the EPI group were significantly lower compared to that of the TAP group (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The epidural anaesthesia is still the golden standard to achieve a postcaesarean analgesia. Epidural anaesthesia is a considerably effective method in controlling the postoperative pain. We are of the opinion that epidural anaesthesia should be preferred in the first place to achieve a successful postcaesarean analgesia as it provides more effective pain control.
Authors: John R A Rigg; Konrad Jamrozik; Paul S Myles; Brendan S Silbert; Phillip J Peyton; Richard W Parsons; Karen S Collins Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-04-13 Impact factor: 79.321