Pain control and analgesic requirements following laparoscopy-assisted transversus abdominus plane (TAP) block compared to port site infiltration post-paediatric laparoscopic appendicectomy. A Randomised controlled trial
link.springer.com shows its articles on its own site.
Read the article on link.springer.com ↗Article · Jan 2025 · 2 min read
In brief
In brief
This randomized controlled trial compared laparoscopic-assisted TAP block to port site infiltration for pain control in children aged 6-16 undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis. Both techniques showed equivalent efficacy with low opioid requirements and similar pain scores, suggesting L-TAP is a safe, feasible alternative when ultrasound-guided blocks are unavailable.
- L-TAP block and port site infiltration show equivalent analgesic efficacy in pediatric laparoscopic appendicectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis.
- Both techniques result in low opioid requirements and pain scores, with most patients managed on simple analgesia postoperatively.
- L-TAP is feasible, safe, and easy to learn, offering an alternative when ultrasound-guided blocks are unavailable.
- No significant difference in length of stay, morphine use, or VAS pain scores between L-TAP and port site infiltration groups.
- Uncomplicated pediatric appendicitis patients undergoing laparoscopy have inherently low postoperative pain requiring minimal opioid intervention.
Written by the GCMD Library team from the article.
Abstract
Background
Appendicectomy is a common procedure in children. Regional anaesthesia helps reduce requirements for opioids and hospital stay and enhances recovery. Laparoscopic-assisted Transversus Abdominus Plane block (L-TAP) was shown to be efficient and potentially superior to port site infiltration (PSI); however, this was not previously studied in paediatric appendicitis. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of L-TAP compared to PSI in children undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA).
Methods
A single-blinded RCT was performed to compare L-TAP to PSI with 0.25% plain bupivacaine at the end of an LA. Patients aged 6–16 years diagnosed with uncomplicated acute appendicitis (AAST grade 1) were randomised to either group in a 1:1 fashion. Complicated appendicitis, open or Lap-converted to open appendicectomies, were excluded. Outcome measures included the total amount and number of doses of opiates and clonidine required, length of stay (LOS), and visual analogue score (VAS) of pain.
Results
49 patients in the PSI group and 41 in the L-TAP group were included; the mean age was 11.3 ± 2.4 years. There was no significant difference in age and weight between the groups. One patient in each group required opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in the theatre recovery room; however, on retrospective review, this was not clinically warranted. Seven patients in each group required morphine while in recovery (p = 0.4). There was no significant difference in total morphine (PSI 0.12 vs L-TAP 0.04 mg/kg body weight, p = 0.1) and clonidine (PSI 0.57 vs L-TAP 0.59 micro gm/kg body weight, p = 0.5) requirement during the hospital stay. Patients in the L-TAP group had two hours shorter LOS than the PSI group (38.0 ± 3.9 vs 39.7 ± 4.1, p = 0.38). There was no significant difference in VAS scores.
Conclusion
There was no difference between L-TAP and PSI. L-TAP was feasible, easy to earn, and safe. We recommend that it be considered in clinical protocols and local guidelines as part of the peri-operative analgesia regimen, especially when ultra-sound guided blocks are unavailable. Overall, patients with uncomplicated appendicitis who undergo LA have low VAS scores and require mostly simple analgesia.