TAP BLOCK VERSUS WOUND INFILTRATION IN SUBJECTS WITH GYNECOLOGICAL SURGERIES

Authors

  • Dr. Nidhi Chaturvedi Assistant Professor, Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Jaipur Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61841/4mz8qr91

Keywords:

Gynaecological surgeries,, post-operative VAS score, postoperative analgesia,, surgical wound infiltration

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block and wound infiltration (WI) with local anaesthetics are used for postoperative analgesia following gynaecological surgeries, reducing the need for administration of opioids.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY: The objective of our study was to assess the post-operative relief of pain in subjects who receive TAP block versus local wound anaesthetic infiltration with 0.25% bupivacaine following open gynaecological surgeries, using visual analogue scale at rest and movement.

METHODS: We included a total of 100 cases based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. TAP block was administered in 50 subjects who underwent gynecological procedures and local wound infiltration was administered in 50 subjects who underwent gynecological procedures.

RESULTS: it is quite evident that the post-operative VAS scores were significantly reduced in subjects with TAP block compared to the VAS scores in the subjects with local wound infiltration.

CONCLUSIONS: The TAP block is more effective and safe technique for postoperative analgesia for lower abdominal gynaecological surgeries, compared to the surgical wound infiltration.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. McDonnell JG, O’Donnell B, Curley G, Heffernan A, Power C, Laffey JG. The analgesic efficacy of transversus abdominis plane block after abdominal surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Anesth Analg 2007; 104:193–197.

2. McDonnell JG, O’Donnell BD, Farrell T, Gough N, Tuite D, Power C, Laffey JG. Transversus abdominis plane block: a cadaveric and radiological evaluation. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2007; 32:399–404.

3. Farooq M, Carey M. A case of liver trauma with a blunt regional anesthesia needle while performing transversus abdominis plane block. Regional Anesthesia Pain Med.

2008;33(3):274-5.

4. Kuppuvelumani P, Jaradi H, Delilkan A: Abdominal nerve blockade for postoperative analgesia after caesarean section. Asia Oceania J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993, 19 (2): 165-169.

5. Rafi AN: Abdominal field block: a new approach via the lumbar triangle. Anaesthesia. 2001, 56 (10): 1024-1026.

6. El-Dawlatly AA, Turkistani A, Kettner SC, Machata AM, Delvi MB, Thallaj A, et al. Ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block: description of a new technique and comparison with conventional systemic analgesia during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Anaesth 2009; 102:763–767.

7. Bouhassira D, Attal N, Alchaar H, Boureau F, Brochet B, Bruxelle J, et al. Comparison of pain syndromes associated with nervous or somatic lesions and development of a new neuropathic pain diagnostic questionnaire (DN4). Pain 2005; 114:29–36.

8. O’Donnell BD, McDonnell JG, McShane AG. The transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in open retropubic prostatectomy. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2006;3:91.

9. El-Dawlatly AA, Turkistani A, Kettner SC, Machata AM, Delvi MB, Thallaj A, et al. Ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block: Description of a new technique and comparison with conventional systemic analgesia during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Anaesth 2009;102:763-7.

10. Niraj G, Searle A, Mathews M, Misra V, Baban M, Kiani S, et al. Analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block in patients undergoing open appendicectomy. Br J Anaesth 2009;103:601-5.

11. Belavy D, Cowlishaw PJ, Howes M, Phillips F: Ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block for analgesia after Caesarean delivery. Br J Anaesth. 2009, 103

(5): 726-730.

Downloads

Published

28.02.2010

How to Cite

Nidhi Chaturvedi, D. (2010). TAP BLOCK VERSUS WOUND INFILTRATION IN SUBJECTS WITH GYNECOLOGICAL SURGERIES. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 14(No. 1), 122-126. https://doi.org/10.61841/4mz8qr91