Journal List > Korean J Anesthesiol > v.76(1) > 1516081924

TOOLS
De Cassai, Sella, Geraldini, Tulgar, Ahiskalioglu, Dost, Manfrin, Karapinar, Paganini, Beldagli, Luoni, Ordulu, Boscolo, and Navalesi: Single-shot regional anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Clinical Research Article

Korean J Anesthesiol 2023;76(1):34-46.

Published online: 8 November 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.22366

Single-shot regional anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Alessandro De Cassai1, Nicolò Sella1, Federico Geraldini1, Serkan Tulgar2, Ali Ahiskalioglu3, 4, Burhan Dost5, Silvia Manfrin6, Yunus Emre Karapinar3, Greta Paganini6, Muzeyyen Beldagli5, Vittoria Luoni6, Busra Burcu Kucuk Ordulu2, Annalisa Boscolo1, Paolo Navalesi1, 6

1UOC Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy

2Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Samsun Training and Research Hospital, Samsun University Faculty of Medicine, Samsun, Turkey

3Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ataturk University School of Medicine, Erzurum, Turkey

4Clinical Research, Development and Design Application and Research Center, Ataturk University School of Medicine, Erzurum, Turkey

5Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ondokuz Mayis University Faculty of Medicine, Samsun, Turkey

6UOC Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Department of Medicine - DIMED, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

Corresponding author: Federico Geraldini, M.D. UOC Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, Padova 35128, Italy Tel: +39-0498213090 Fax: +39-0498213091 Email: federico.geraldini@aopd.veneto.it

Received 22 June 2022       Revised 5 September 2022       Accepted 6 November 2022

Copyright © The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists, 2023

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

Different regional anesthesia (RA) techniques have been used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), but there is no consensus on their comparative effectiveness. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of RA techniques on patients undergoing LC using a network meta-analysis approach.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index) using the following PICOS criteria: (P) adult patients undergoing LC; (I) any RA single-shot technique with injection of local anesthetics; (C) placebo or no intervention; (O) postoperative opioid consumption expressed as morphine milligram equivalents (MME), rest pain at 12 h and 24 h post-operation, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), length of stay; and (S) randomized controlled trials.

Results

A total of 84 studies were included. With the exception of the rectus sheath block (P = 0.301), the RA techniques were superior to placebo at reducing opioid consumption. Regarding postoperative pain, the transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block (−1.80 on an 11-point pain scale) and erector spinae plane (ESP) block (−1.33 on an 11-point pain scale) were the most effective at 12 and 24 h. The TAP block was also associated with the greatest reduction in PONV.

Conclusions

RA techniques are effective at reducing intraoperative opioid use, postoperative pain, and PONV in patients undergoing LC. Patients benefit the most from the bilateral paravertebral, ESP, quadratus lumborum, and TAP blocks.

Keywords: Cholecystectomy, Conduction anesthesia, Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Laparoscopy, Local anesthesia, Meta-analysis

Introduction

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), the most frequently performed upper abdominal laparoscopic surgery, is the gold standard treatment modality for gallbladder disorders, such as cholelithiasis and cholecystitis [1,2]. This minimally invasive procedure is considered superior to open surgery, especially due in terms of lower postoperative pain and early recovery, and triggers a relatively reduced immune response [3,4].
Although LC is considered less painful than open surgery, postoperative pain must still be managed [5]. The components of pain in laparoscopic upper abdominal surgeries differ from those in open surgeries. Some of these components include incisional pain, visceral pain, pain secondary to peritoneal irritation, and shoulder pain [5,6]. Despite these many components, the primary source of pain reported for LC is incisional; therefore, incisional pain should be the main focus of postoperative pain management [5]. However, a multimodal analgesic approach that alleviates all components of pain is the most appropriate. Generally, multimodal analgesia is applied in LC, including regional anesthesia (RA) techniques. Some components of multimodal analgesia in LC include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and paracetamol, opioids, local infiltration analgesia, fascial plane blocks, and paravertebral and peri-paravertebral blocks [2,7,8].
Many meta-analyses have evaluated different RA techniques for postoperative pain and analgesia requirements in LC [2,9–13]. Herein, we designed and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled comparative studies that evaluated the effect of RA techniques, including infiltration, in LC. The primary outcome of this analysis was postoperative morphine consumption. In addition, this study aimed to compare the overall relative effectiveness of each technique.

Materials and Methods

The network meta-analysis protocol used for this study was registered prospectively (PROSPERO identification number: CRD42022307399), and we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement Guidelines in order to prepare the present manuscript [14].

Eligibility criteria

Studies were considered eligible for inclusion based on the following PICOS criteria: (P) surgical patients aged > 18 years requiring LCA; (I) any RA single-shot technique with local anesthetics; (C) placebo or no intervention; (O) postoperative opioid consumption expressed as morphine milligram equivalents (MME), rest pain at 12 and 24 h post-operation, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and hospital length of stay (LOS); and (S) randomized controlled trials.

Search strategy

We performed a systematic search of the medical literature for the identification, screening, and inclusion of articles. The search was performed in the following databases: PubMed, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index) from inception to April 9, 2022. We also performed literature snowballing by checking the references of the included studies to identify additional eligible studies. We did not apply any restrictions on the language, status, or year of publication. The search strategy used for each database is available as supplementary material (Supplementary Material 1, which reports our search strategy).

Study selection

Two researchers independently screened the titles and abstracts of the identified papers to select the relevant manuscripts. The full text of every citation considered potentially relevant was reviewed.

Data extraction and data retrieval

After identifying studies that met the inclusion criteria, two authors manually reviewed and assessed each of the included studies. Opioids were converted to compare intravenous MME using the GlobalRPh morphine equivalent calculator, considering a 0% cross-tolerance modifier (http://www.globalrph.com/narcotic).

Quality assessment and certainty of evidence assessment

Two team members independently evaluated the quality of the included RCTs using the Risk of Bias (RoB) 2 tool [15]. Disagreements were resolved through discussion, or, if the disagreement could not be resolved, a third researcher was consulted. According to the RoB 2 tool, the overall risk of bias is expressed using a three-grade scale (i.e., “low risk of bias,” “high risk of bias,” or “ some concerns”). We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence related to each of the outcomes [16].

Statistical methods

The meta-analysis was performed using R version 4.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Austria) and the ‘netmeta’ package. The treatment effect on continuous outcomes was expressed as the mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI. The treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes was expressed as the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% CI. The methods were ranked based on the frequentist analog of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve [17]. When necessary, we converted the reported median and interquartile range to the estimated mean and SD using Hozo’s method [18]. We decided not to apply continuity correction to zero events.

Inconsistency, heterogeneity, and publication bias analysis

To assess study heterogeneity, the chi-square test and I2 statistic were used (I2 values were classified as follows: low, < 25%; moderate, 25–50%; and high, > 50%) [19]. The within-design heterogeneity and between-design inconsistency were evaluated using Cochrane Q. A random-effects model was preferred, regardless of both inconsistency and heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated by visual inspection of funnel plots.

Results

Study selection and data retrieval

The search results are shown in the PRISMA diagram (Fig. 1). The initial screening identified 9,124 studies. Of these, 8,955 were excluded during the preliminary screening because they were unrelated or duplicate studies. The remaining 169 full-text manuscripts were retrieved, 85 of which were excluded based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 84 studies that evaluated nine different RA techniques were included in the quantitative and qualitative analyses [20–103].
The regional and local anesthesia techniques assessed included intraperitoneal local anesthetic instillations; wound/port infiltrations; and erector spinae plane (ESP), transversus abdominis plane (TAP), subcostal TAP, rectus sheath, quadratus lumborum (QL), and paravertebral blocks. The resulting network is shown graphically in Fig. 2.
According to the risk of bias evaluation, seven studies were classified as low risk of bias, ten as high risk of bias, and the remaining studies had some concerns (Fig. 3). The criteria used to assign these risk of bias judgments are available as supplementary material (Supplementary Material 2 with the risk of bias table).

Study characteristics

The 84 studies included a total of 6,214 patients. Of these, 2,079 were allocated to the placebo or no intervention groups, while 4,135 were allocated to the regional or local anesthesia groups (1,117 to wound/port infiltrations, 1,490 to intraperitoneal instillations, 263 to ESP blocks, 447 to TAP blocks, 520 to subcostal TAP blocks, 86 to rectus sheath blocks, 149 to QL blocks, and 63 to paravertebral blocks). Among the comparator groups, 70 studies used placebo/no intervention, 30 used wound/port infiltrations, 37 used intraperitoneal instillations, 8 used ESP blocks, 12 used TAP blocks, 15 used subcostal TAP blocks, 3 used rectus sheath blocks, 4 used QL blocks, and 2 used paravertebral blocks. The characteristics of all the included studies are available for consultation (Supplementary Material 3).

Outcomes

Primary outcome: postoperative opioid consumption at 24 h

Postoperative opioid consumption was evaluated in 46 of the studies. With the exception of the rectus sheath block (P = 0.301), all RA techniques were superior at reducing opioid consumption compared to placebo. The most effective block in our analysis was the paravertebral block (−6.64 MME [−9.67, −3.63]). The results for the primary outcome are graphically depicted in Fig. 4, and the results for all outcomes are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, and additionally, direct and indirect evidence contributing to each outcome is available as Supplementary Material 4.
Using the GRADE assessment, the quality of evidence was rated as low due to high heterogeneity (I2 = 96.6%) and evidence of possible publication bias according to the Egger test.

Postoperative pain at 12 h

Postoperative pain at 12 h was evaluated in 53 of the studies. Compared to placebo, the greatest reduction in pain was obtained with the subcostal TAP block (−1.80 [−2.21, −1.36] on an 11-point pain scale). Notably, the paravertebral block did not reach statistical significance given the relatively low sample size compared to the other interventions, resulting in a large CI (−1.92, 0.32).
Using the GRADE assessment, the quality of evidence was rated as moderate owing to high heterogeneity (I2 = 85.4%).

Postoperative pain at 24 h

Postoperative pain at 24 h was evaluated in 65 of the studies. The ESP block was associated with the greatest pain reduction compared to placebo (−1.33 [−1.96, −0.71] on an 11-point pain scale). Irrespective of the block type, the pain scores in the control groups were greater than those in the RA groups. For this outcome, the paravertebral block did not reach statistical significance, and had a large CI (−2.15, −0.15).
Using the GRADE assessment, the quality of evidence was rated as moderate owing to high heterogeneity (I2 = 89.6%).

PONV

PONV was evaluated in 40 of the studies. This outcome was not available for the rectus sheath block. The relevant studies assessing the ESP block, intraperitoneal instillation, TAP block, and wound/port infiltration resulted in a statistically significant reduction in PONV compared to placebo or no intervention. The highest reduction in PONV was obtained with the TAP block, with an OR of 0.35 (0.22, 0.57).
Using the GRADE assessment, the quality of evidence was rated as moderate with low heterogeneity (I2 = 0%), but high inconsistency.

Hospital length of stay

Only 12 of the studies evaluated the effect of RA on hospital length of stay. Considering the small number of trials, a meta-analysis was not performed to avoid potentially misleading results. We chose to provide a qualitative description of the results instead.
Three of the trials found a statistically significant difference, two of which investigated intraperitoneal instillation vs. placebo [56,97], while the third one evaluated ESP block vs. subcostal TAP block [65]. However, only one study found a difference that was both statistically and clinically significant [98] (1.3 ± 0.6 vs. 1.9 ± 1.2 days). For the other two trials, the mean difference was two [56] and three hours [65], respectively, which we considered clinically insignificant.
No differences in the hospital LOS were found in the remaining nine trials. These studies evaluated intraperitoneal instillation compared to placebo (five trials) [21,23,33,48,66], rectus sheath block compared to placebo (one trial) [67], paravertebral block compared to placebo (one trial) [73], wound/port infiltration compared to TAP block [90], and intraperitoneal instillation compared to TAP block compared to wound/port infiltration compared to placebo (one study) [24].

Use of rescue analgesics

The use of additional analgesics was also evaluated in 28 of the studies. All interventions were found to significantly reduced the use of postoperative rescue analgesics. The QL block was the most effective intervention, with an OR of 0.07 (95% CI [0.01, 0.40]).
Using the GRADE assessment, the quality of evidence was rated as moderate owing to high heterogeneity (I2 = 61.7%).

Publication bias

Egger’s test revealed a potential publication bias only for postoperative opioid consumption (P = 0.417). The funnel plots are available as Supplementary Material 5.

Sensitivity analysis

We performed a sensitivity analysis by removing studies with a high risk of bias. The results of the sensitivity analysis were not significantly different from the main analysis, moreover, such sensitivity analysis could not explain the possible publication bias for postoperative opioid consumption (Supplementary Material 6).

Discussion

Our study showed that patients receiving RA for LC had lower opioid consumption and pain in the first 24 h post-operation compared to placebo or no intervention. However, the limited amount of data prevented any conclusions regarding possible benefits to be made for hospital stay. LC is the most frequently performed upper abdominal laparoscopic surgery, and the 2018 PROSPECT guidelines for LC recommended that wound/port infiltration be the routine regional technique used; the other techniques were not recommended because of limited small trial evidence and the potential for complications or failure of the anesthetic technique [104]. However, in the four years since these guidelines were published, many studies have substantially improved our knowledge on this topic.
Pain after LC may be associated with both visceral and somatic innervation. Postoperative analgesia should therefore be chosen considering both sources of pain. Our analysis confirms that most RA techniques are effective at reducing postoperative opioid consumption, pain on the first postoperative day, and PONV, that all of which are in line with previously published guidelines [104].
Considering our primary outcome, the paravertebral block was the most effective technique with the most significant reduction in morphine consumption (6.64 mg). While this difference is statistically significant, previous studies have suggested that a reduction in morphine that is < 10 mg may have a limited clinical impact [105]. While the clinical significance of small reductions in opioid consumption has not been clearly established, a recent review showed that there are no clear data to define the minimal clinically important difference for 24 h opioid consumption [106].
Pain at 12 and 24 h post-operation similarly showed that most RA techniques were effective, with the subcostal TAP block and the ESP block showing the greatest effect. Among the RA techniques, only the paravertebral block did not show statistically significant results regarding pain in the first 24 h post-operation. This result is likely due to the relatively small sample size for the paravertebral block compared with the other interventions, that producinge a large CI.
Of note, while the small reduction in opioid consumption may be debatable, the overall benefit of these blocks on pain scores and PONV indicates that the benefits are not limited only to opioid consumption, but also affect overall patient comfort, strongly suggesting that these techniques should be routinely adopted.
Not all the investigated techniques appeared to be equally effective at achieving the desired results for morphine consumption or postoperative pain. In particular, the rectus sheath block was not statistically significant for any of the investigated outcomes, and intraperitoneal instillation of local anesthetics and wound/port infiltration were consistently among the least effective treatments. A recent meta-analysis investigating the effect of the rectus sheath block on various laparoscopic surgeries [13] found that the technique was effectively reduced pain for both the second and the composite –10–12 h post-operation, though it was not effective at 24 h post-operation. A limitation of this study relates to the inclusion of several different types of laparoscopic procedures, the majority of which are gynecological interventions. While we did not investigate early postoperative pain at 2 h, the evaluation of a single type of intervention makes our patient population more homogenous, potentially strengthening the significance of our results. Another potential limitation related to the use of the rectus sheath block in LC is that it targets only the anterior ramus of the ventral branch of the spinal nerve, which limits its ability to affect both visceral and abdominal wall pain originating from laparoscopic ports lateral to the rectus sheaths after LC. Previous studies have reported that visceral pain is the most significant contributor to pain in the first 24 h after LC [107,108]. Given this context, our results regarding the rectus sheath block were unsurprising.
Future studies comparing paravertebral and interfascial blocks are warranted. Moreover, considering that part of the evidence produced by our study arose from indirect evidence, more studies directly comparing interventions are necessary.
Our study has some limitations. First, all our analyses were characterized by high heterogeneity, likely resulting from the pooling of heterogeneous studies of anesthetic and analgesic regimens, which, if these characteristics interacted with the outcomes of the local anesthetic injection, may have compromised the estimated outcomes. Therefore, readers should be cautious when extrapolating and applying these results to routine clinical practice. Second, we pooled no-intervention and placebo groups together for the meta-analysis; however, no block is not the same as a placebo since it has no potential favorable psychological advantages. Placebo may cause a psychological effect lowering pain scores and opioid use when a patient is not offered a block in daily clinical practice. Analyzing these interventions individually improves the accuracy and strength of our results. Third, the conclusions regarding some RA techniques (such as the paravertebral block) were based on a small sample size, which greatly decreases the strength of the evidence for these techniques. While we decided not to remove these techniques from our analysis, further studies are necessary to increase the certainty of evidence regarding these blocks.
In conclusion, regional single-shot techniques are effective at reducing intraoperative morphine consumption, pain, and PONV in patients undergoing LC. Patients benefit the most from the bilateral paravertebral, ESP, QL, and TAP blocks. The rectus sheath block was not effective for the considered outcomes.

Notes

Funding

None.

Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author Contributions

Alessandro De Cassai (Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Methodology; Project administration; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Nicolò Sella (Conceptualization; Data curation; Methodology; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Federico Geraldini (Conceptualization; Methodology; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Serkan Tulgar (Data curation; Methodology; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Ali Ahiskalioglu (Investigation; Validation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Burhan Dost (Investigation; Visualization; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Silvia Manfrin (Investigation; Writing – review & editing)

Yunus Emre Karapinar (Investigation; Writing – review & editing)

Greta Paganini (Investigation; Writing – review & editing)

Muzeyyen Beldagli (Investigation; Writing – review & editing)

Vittoria Luoni (Investigation; Writing – review & editing)

Busra Burcu Kucuk Ordulu (Investigation; Writing – review & editing)

Annalisa Boscolo (Methodology; Project administration; Supervision; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Paolo Navalesi (Methodology; Project administration; Supervision; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Material 1.
Search Strategy.
kja-22366-suppl1.pdf
Supplementary Material 2.
Risk of Bias.
kja-22366-suppl2.pdf
Supplementary Material 3.
Study characteristics.
kja-22366-suppl3.pdf
Supplementary Material 4.
Direct and indirect evidence.
kja-22366-suppl4.pdf
Supplementary Material 5.
Funnel Plots.
kja-22366-suppl5.pdf
Supplementary Material 6.
Sensitivity analysis.
kja-22366-suppl6.pdf

References

1. Nassar AH, Zanati HE, Ng HJ, Khan KS, Wood C. Open conversion in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and bile duct exploration: subspecialisation safely reduces the conversion rates. Surg Endosc. 2022; 36:550–8.
2. Wang W, Wang L, Gao Y. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials concerning the efficacy of transversus abdominis plane block for pain control after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Front Surg. 2021; 8:700318.
3. Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs open cholecystectomy in elderly patients. World J Gastroenterol. 2014; 20:17626–34.
4. Kuhry E, Jeekel J, Bonjer HJ. Effect of laparoscopy on the immune system. Semin Laparosc Surg. 2004; 11:37–44.
5. Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H. Characteristics and prediction of early pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Pain. 2001; 90:261–9.
6. Tsai HW, Chen YJ, Ho CM, Hseu SS, Chao KC, Tsai SK, et al. Maneuvers to decrease laparoscopy-induced shoulder and upper abdominal pain: a randomized controlled study. Arch Surg. 2011; 146:1360–6.
7. Shin HJ, Oh AY, Baik JS, Kim JH, Han SH, Hwang JW. Ultrasound-guided oblique subcostal transversus abdominis plane block for analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded study. Minerva Anestesiol. 2014; 80:185–93.
8. Visoiu M, Cassara A, Yang CI. Bilateral paravertebral blockade (T7-10) versus incisional local anesthetic administration for pediatric laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized clinical study. Anesth Analg. 2015; 120:1106–13.
9. Daghmouri MA, Akremi S, Chaouch MA, Mesbahi M, Amouri N, Jaoua H, et al. Bilateral erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Pain Pract. 2021; 21:357–65.
10. Grape S, Kirkham KR, Akiki L, Albrecht E. Transversus abdominis plane block versus local anesthetic wound infiltration for optimal analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. J Clin Anesth. 2021; 75:110450.
11. Koo CH, Hwang JY, Shin HJ, Ryu JH. The effects of erector spinae plane block in terms of postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Med. 2020; 9:2928.
12. Sedaghat N, Cao AM, Eslick GD, Cox MR. Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy in pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2017; 31:673–9.
13. Hamid HK, Ahmed AY, Alhamo MA, Davis GN. Efficacy and safety profile of rectus sheath block in adult laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis. J Surg Res. 2021; 261:10–7.
14. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009; 339:b2700.
15. Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019; 366:l4898.
16. Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Murad MH, Li T, Brignardello-Petersen R, Singh JA, et al. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014; 349:g5630.
17. Rücker G, Schwarzer G. Ranking treatments in frequentist network meta-analysis works without resampling methods. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015; 15:58.
18. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005; 5:13.
19. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003; 327:557–60.
20. Ure BM, Troidl H, Spangenberger W, Neugebauer E, Lefering R, Ullmann K, et al. Preincisional local anesthesia with bupivacaine and pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A double-blind randomized clinical trial. Surg Endosc. 1993; 7:482–8.
21. Elhakim M, Amine H, Kamel S, Saad F. Effects of intraperitoneal lidocaine combined with intravenous or intraperitoneal tenoxicam on pain relief and bowel recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2000; 44:929–33.
22. Hernandez-Palazón J, Tortosa JA, Nuño de la Rosa V, Giménez-Viudes J, Ramírez G, Robles R. Intraperitoneal application of bupivacaine plus morphine for pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2003; 20:891–6.
23. Raetzell M, Maier C, Schröder D, Wulf H. Intraperitoneal application of bupivacaine during laparoscopic cholecystectomy--risk or benefit? Anesth Analg. 1995; 81:967–72.
24. Ergin A, Timuçin Aydin M, Çiyiltepe H, Karip AB, Fersahoğlu MM, Özcabi Y, et al. Effectiveness of local anesthetic application methods in postoperative pain control in laparoscopic cholecystectomies; a randomised controlled trial. Int J Surg. 2021; 95:106134.
25. Pasqualucci A, de Angelis V, Contardo R, Colò F, Terrosu G, Donini A, et al. Preemptive analgesia: intraperitoneal local anesthetic in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Anesthesiology. 1996; 85:11–20.
26. Elfberg BA, Sjövall-Mjöberg S. Intraperitoneal bupivacaine does not effectively reduce pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized, placebo-controlled and double-blind study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2000; 10:357–9.
27. Vrsajkov V, Ilić N, Uvelin A, Ilić R, Lukić-Šarkanović M, Plećaš-Đurić A. Erector spinae plane block reduces pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Anaesthesist. 2021; 70(Suppl 1):48–52.
28. Zajaczkowska R, Wnek W, Wordliczek J, Dobrogowski J. Peripheral opioid analgesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2004; 29:424–9.
29. Lepner U, Goroshina J, Samarütel J. Postoperative pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised prospective double-blind clinical trial. Scand J Surg. 2003; 92:121–4.
30. Altıparmak B, Korkmaz Toker M, Uysal AI, Kuşçu Y, Gümüş Demirbilek S. Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block versus oblique subcostal transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia of adult patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: randomized, controlled trial. J Clin Anesth. 2019; 57:31–6.
31. Oksar M, Koyuncu O, Turhanoglu S, Temiz M, Oran MC. Transversus abdominis plane block as a component of multimodal analgesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Clin Anesth. 2016; 34:72–8.
32. Rahimzadeh P, Faiz SH, Hoseini M, Mousavie SH, Imani F, Negah AR. Comparison of intraperitoneal bupivacaine, acetazolamide, and placebo on pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery: a clinical trial. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2018; 32:112.
33. Scheinin B, Kellokumpu I, Lindgren L, Haglund C, Rosenberg PH. Effect of intraperitoneal bupivacaine on pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1995; 39:195–8.
34. Ali S, Zarin M, Jan Z, Maroof A. Effect of bupivacaine on postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2018; 28:663–6.
35. Yildiz M, Kozanhan B, Iyisoy MS, Canıtez A, Aksoy N, Eryigit A. The effect of erector spinae plane block on postoperative analgesia and respiratory function in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. J Clin Anesth. 2021; 74:110403.
36. Verma R, Srivastava D, Saxena R, Singh TK, Gupta D, Agarwal A, et al. Ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Anesth Essays Res. 2020; 14:226–32.
37. Papagiannopoulou P, Argiriadou H, Georgiou M, Papaziogas B, Sfyra E, Kanakoudis F. Preincisional local infiltration of levobupivacaine vs ropivacaine for pain control after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2003; 17:1961–4.
38. Hasaniya NW, Zayed FF, Faiz H, Severino R. Preinsertion local anesthesia at the trocar site improves perioperative pain and decreases costs of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2001; 15:962–4.
39. Suseela I, Anandan K, Aravind A, Kaniyil S. Comparison of ultrasound-guided bilateral subcostal transversus abdominis plane block and port-site infiltration with bupivacaine in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Indian J Anaesth. 2018; 62:497–501.
40. Beder El Baz MM, Farahat TE. Intraperitoneal levobupivacaine alone or with dexmedetomidine for postoperative analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Anesth Essays Res. 2018; 12:355–8.
41. Ramkiran S, Jacob M, Honwad M, Vivekanand D, Krishnakumar M, Patrikar S. Ultrasound-guided combined fascial plane blocks as an intervention for pain management after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized control study. Anesth Essays Res. 2018; 12:16–23.
42. Khan KK, Khan RI. Analgesic effect of bilateral subcostal tap block after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2018; 30:12–5.
43. Dost B, Yalçın Sezen G, İskender A, Özlü O. A comparison of transversus abdominis plane block guided with ultrasonography and local anesthetic infiltration in laparoscopic cholecystectomy operations. Agri. 2018; 30:51–7.
44. Petersen PL, Stjernholm P, Kristiansen VB, Torup H, Hansen EG, Mitchell AU, et al. The beneficial effect of transversus abdominis plane block after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in day-case surgery: a randomized clinical trial. Anesth Analg. 2012; 115:527–33.
45. Mraović B, Jurisić T, Kogler-Majeric V, Sustic A. Intraperitoneal bupivacaine for analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1997; 41:193–6.
46. Kolsi K, Ghozzi H, Masmoudi A, Mzali A, Sahnoun Z, Zeghal K, et al. Intraperitoneal lignocaine for analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Acute Pain. 2000; 3:200–5.
47. El-Labban GM, Hokkam EN, El-Labban MA, Morsy K, Saadl S, Heissam KS. Intraincisional vs intraperitoneal infiltration of local anaesthetic for controlling early post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy pain. J Minim Access Surg. 2011; 7:173–7.
48. Elhakim M, Elkott M, Ali NM, Tahoun HM. Intraperitoneal lidocaine for postoperative pain after laparoscopy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2000; 44:280–4.
49. Gupta M, Naithani U, Singariya G, Gupta S. Comparison of 0.25% ropivacaine for intraperitoneal instillation v/s rectus sheath block for postoperative pain relief following laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016; 10:UC10–5.
50. Dath D, Park AE. Randomized, controlled trial of bupivacaine injection to decrease pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Can J Surg. 1999; 42:284–8.
51. Al-Refaey K, Usama EM, Al-Hefnawey E. Adding magnesium sulfate to bupivacaine in transversus abdominis plane block for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a single blinded randomized controlled trial. Saudi J Anaesth. 2016; 10:187–91.
52. Breazu CM, Ciobanu L, Hadade A, Bartos A, Mitre C, Mircea PA, et al. The efficacy of oblique subcostal transversus abdominis plane block in laparoscopic cholecystectomy - a prospective, placebo controlled study. Rom J Anaesth Intensive Care. 2016; 23:12–8.
53. Khurana S, Garg K, Grewal A, Kaul TK, Bose A. A comparative study on postoperative pain relief in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: intraperitoneal bupivacaine versus combination of bupivacaine and buprenorphine. Anesth Essays Res. 2016; 10:23–8.
54. Liu DS, Guan F, Wang B, Zhang T. Combined usage with intraperitoneal and incisional ropivacaine reduces pain severity after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015; 8:22460–8.
55. Lin S, Hua J, Xu B, Yang T, He Z, Xu C, et al. Comparison of bupivacaine and parecoxib for postoperative pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015; 8:13824–9.
56. Ahmad A, Faridi S, Siddiqui F, Edhi MM, Khan M. Effect of bupivacaine soaked gauze in postoperative pain relief in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective observational controlled trial in 120 patients. Patient Saf Surg. 2015; 9:31.
57. Saliminia A, Azimaraghi O, Babayipour S, Ardavan K, Movafegh A. Efficacy of transverse abdominis plane block in reduction of postoperation pain in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2015; 53:119–22.
58. Chavarría-Pérez T, Cabrera-Leal CF, Ramírez-Vargas S, Reynada JL, Arce-Salinas CA. Locally administered ropivacaine vs. standard analgesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2015; 53:274–8.
59. Basaran B, Basaran A, Kozanhan B, Kasdogan E, Eryilmaz MA, Ozmen S. Analgesia and respiratory function after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients receiving ultrasound-guided bilateral oblique subcostal transversus abdominis plane block: a randomized double-blind study. Med Sci Monit. 2015; 21:1304–12.
60. Tulgar S, Kapakli MS, Senturk O, Selvi O, Serifsoy TE, Ozer Z. Evaluation of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Clin Anesth. 2018; 49:101–6.
61. Vijayaraghavalu S, Bharthi Sekar E. A comparative study on the postoperative analgesic effects of the intraperitoneal instillation of bupivacaine versus normal saline following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cureus. 2021; 13:e14151.
62. Baytar Ç, Yılmaz C, Karasu D, Topal S. Comparison of ultrasound-guided subcostal transversus abdominis plane block and quadratus lumborum block in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study. Pain Res Manag. 2019; 2019:2815301.
63. Aygun H, Kavrut Ozturk N, Pamukcu AS, Inal A, Kiziloglu I, Thomas DT, et al. Comparison of ultrasound guided erector spinae plane block and quadratus lumborum block for postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients; a prospective randomized study. J Clin Anesth. 2020; 62:109696.
64. Vamnes JS, Sørenstua M, Solbakk KI, Sterud B, Leonardsen AC. Anterior quadratus lumborum block for ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Croat Med J. 2021; 62:137–45.
65. Ozdemir H, Araz C, Karaca O, Turk E. Comparison of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block and subcostal transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized, controlled trial. J Invest Surg. 2022; 35:870–7.
66. Szem JW, Hydo L, Barie PS. A double-blinded evaluation of intraperitoneal bupivacaine vs saline for the reduction of postoperative pain and nausea after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 1996; 10:44–8.
67. Kamei H, Ishibashi N, Nakayama G, Hamada N, Ogata Y, Akagi Y. Ultrasound-guided rectus sheath block for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2015; 8:148–52.
68. Honca M, Kose EA, Bulus H, Horasanli E. The postoperative analgesic efficacy of intraperitoneal bupivacaine compared with levobupivacaine in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Acta Chir Belg. 2014; 114:174–8.
69. Kaushal-Deep SM, Anees A, Khan S, Khan MA, Lodhi M. Randomized controlled study of intraincisional infiltration versus intraperitoneal instillation of standardized dose of ropivacaine 0.2% in post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy pain: do we really need high doses of local anesthetics-time to rethink! Surg Endosc. 2018; 32:3321–41.
70. Swati S, Shagufta N, Erum O, Adil A, Urvashi Y. Ultrasound-guided intercostal nerve block and subcostal transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia in patients posted for open cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Anesth Essays Res. 2020; 14:376–83.
71. Kitamura N, Iida H, Maehira H, Mori H, Sada Y, Shimizu T, et al. Postoperative analgesic effect of ultrasound-guided rectus sheath block and local anesthetic infiltration after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized controlled trial. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2022; 15:29–35.
72. Sandhya S, Puthenveettil N, Vinodan K. Intraperitoneal nebulization of ropivacaine for control of pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy -A randomized control trial. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2021; 37:443–8.
73. Gündost L, Koltka K, Sivrikoz N, Turhan Ö, Hündür D, Yavru HA, et al. Effects of paravertebral block and intravenous analgesic methods on postoperative pain management and opioid consumption in laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Agri. 2020; 32:202–7.
74. Ali L, Waseem M, Iqbal A. Comparison of analgesic efficacy of transversus abdominis plane block with conventional local anesthetic wound infiltration. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2018; 68:1106–10.
75. Ng A, Swami A, Smith G, Robertson G, Lloyd DM. Is intraperitoneal levobupivacaine with epinephrine useful for analgesia following laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2004; 21:653–7.
76. Ortiz J, Suliburk JW, Wu K, Bailard NS, Mason C, Minard CG, et al. Bilateral transversus abdominis plane block does not decrease postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy when compared with local anesthetic infiltration of trocar insertion sites. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2012; 37:188–92.
77. Bhatia N, Arora S, Jyotsna W, Kaur G. Comparison of posterior and subcostal approaches to ultrasound-guided transverse abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Clin Anesth. 2014; 26:294–9.
78. Arık E, Akkaya T, Ozciftci S, Alptekin A, Balas Ş. Unilateral transversus abdominis plane block and port-site infiltration: comparison of postoperative analgesic efficacy in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Anaesthesist. 2020; 69:270–6.
79. Khandelwal H, Parag K, Singh A, Anand N, Govil N. Comparison of subcostal transversus abdominis block with intraperitoneal instillation of levobupivacaine for pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective study. Anesth Essays Res. 2019; 13:144–8.
80. Zayas-González H, González-Hernández A, Manzano-García A, Hernández-Rivero D, García-Cuevas MA, Granados-Mortera JC, et al. Effect of local infiltration with oxytocin on hemodynamic response to surgical incision and postoperative pain in patients having open laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia. Eur J Pain. 2019; 23:1519–26.
81. Pasqualucci A, Contardo R, Da Broi U, Colo F, Terrosu G, Donini A, et al. The effects of intraperitoneal local anesthetic on analgesic requirements and endocrine response after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized double-blind controlled study. J Laparoendosc Surg. 1994; 4:405–12.
82. Rademaker BM, Kalkman CJ, Odoom JA, de Wit L, Ringers J. Intraperitoneal local anaesthetics after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: effects on postoperative pain, metabolic responses and lung function. Br J Anaesth. 1994; 72:263–6.
83. Houben AM, Moreau AJ, Detry OM, Kaba A, Joris JL. Bilateral subcostal transversus abdominis plane block does not improve the postoperative analgesia provided by multimodal analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2019; 36:772–7.
84. Ra YS, Kim CH, Lee GY, Han JI. The analgesic effect of the ultrasound-guided transverse abdominis plane block after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2010; 58:362–8.
85. Garcia JB, Alencar Júnior AM, Santos CE. Intraperitoneal administration of 50% enantiomeric excess (S75-R25) bupivacaine in postoperative analgesia of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2007; 57:344–55.
86. Kucuk C, Kadiogullari N, Canoler O, Savli S. A placebo-controlled comparison of bupivacaine and ropivacaine instillation for preventing postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Today. 2007; 37:396–400.
87. Govil N, Kumar P. Intraperitoneal levobupivacaine with or without clonidine for pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Anesth Essays Res. 2017; 11:125–8.
88. Altuntaş G, Akkaya ÖT, Özkan D, Sayın MM, Balas Ş, Özlü E. Comparison of intraabdominal and trocar site local anaesthetic infiltration on postoperative analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2016; 44:306–11.
89. Karaman Y, Kebapçı E, Görgün M, Güvenli Y, Tekgül Z. Post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy pain: effects of preincisional infiltration and intraperitoneal levobupivacaine 0.25% on pain control-a randomized prospective double-blinded placebo-controlled trial. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2014; 42:80–5.
90. Park JS, Choi GS, Kwak KH, Jung H, Jeon Y, Park S, et al. Effect of local wound infiltration and transversus abdominis plane block on morphine use after laparoscopic colectomy: a nonrandomized, single-blind prospective study. J Surg Res. 2015; 195:61–6.
91. Bava EP, Ramachandran R, Rewari V, Chandralekha , Bansal VK, Trikha A. Analgesic efficacy of ultrasound guided transversus abdominis plane block versus local anesthetic infiltration in adult patients undergoing single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Anesth Essays Res. 2016; 10:561–7.
92. Agarwal A, Batra RK, Chhabra A, Subramaniam R, Misra MC. The evaluation of efficacy and safety of paravertebral block for perioperative analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Saudi J Anaesth. 2012; 6:344–9.
93. Ingelmo PM, Bucciero M, Somaini M, Sahillioglu E, Garbagnati A, Charton A, et al. Intraperitoneal nebulization of ropivacaine for pain control after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Br J Anaesth. 2013; 110:800–6.
94. Castillo-Garza G, Díaz-Elizondo JA, Cuello-García CA, Villegas-Cabello O. Irrigation with bupivacaine at the surgical bed for postoperative pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS. 2012; 16:105–11.
95. Verma GR, Lyngdoh TS, Kaman L, Bala I. Placement of 0.5% bupivacaine-soaked Surgicel in the gallbladder bed is effective for pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2006; 20:1560–4.
96. Ökmen K, Metin Ökmen B, Topal S. Ultrasound-guided posterior quadratus lumborum block for postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled double blind study. J Clin Anesth. 2018; 49:112–7.
97. Berven S, Horvath K, Brooks DC. The effect of topical intraperitoneal bupivacaine on post-operative pain following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Minim Invasive Ther. 1995; 4:67–71.
98. Labaille T, Mazoit JX, Paqueron X, Franco D, Benhamou D. The clinical efficacy and pharmacokinetics of intraperitoneal ropivacaine for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Anesth Analg. 2002; 94:100–5.
99. Vindal A, Sarda H, Lal P. Laparoscopically guided transversus abdominis plane block offers better pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a triple blind randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2021; 35:1713–21.
100. Manan A, Khan AA, Ahmad I, Usman M, Jamil T, Sajid MA. Intraperitoneal bupivacaine as post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy analgesia. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2020; 30:9–12.
101. Louizos AA, Hadzilia SJ, Leandros E, Kouroukli IK, Georgiou LG, Bramis JP. Postoperative pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a placebo-controlled double-blind randomized trial of preincisional infiltration and intraperitoneal instillation of levobupivacaine 0.25%. Surg Endosc. 2005; 19:1503–6.
102. Jabbour-Khoury SI, Dabbous AS, Gerges FJ, Azar MS, Ayoub CM, Khoury GS. Intraperitoneal and intravenous routes for pain relief in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS. 2005; 9:316–21.
103. Papaziogas B, Argiriadou H, Papagiannopoulou P, Pavlidis T, Georgiou M, Sfyra E, et al. Preincisional intravenous low-dose ketamine and local infiltration with ropivacaine reduces postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2001; 15:1030–3.
104. Barazanchi AW, Macfater WS, Rahiri JL, Tutone S, Hill AG, Joshi GP; PROSPECT collaboration. Evidence-based management of pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a PROSPECT review update. Br J Anaesth. 2018; 121:787–803.
105. Hussain N, Brull R, Noble J, Weaver T, Essandoh M, McCartney CJ, et al. Statistically significant but clinically unimportant: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the analgesic benefits of erector spinae plane block following breast cancer surgery. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2021; 46:3–12.
106. Muñoz-Leyva F, El-Boghdadly K, Chan V. Is the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in acute pain a good measure of analgesic efficacy in regional anesthesia? Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2020; 45:1000–5.
107. Joris J, Thiry E, Paris P, Weerts J, Lamy M. Pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: characteristics and effect of intraperitoneal bupivacaine. Anesth Analg. 1995; 81:379–84.
108. Jorgensen JO, Gillies RB, Hunt DR, Caplehorn JR, Lumley T. A simple and effective way to reduce postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Aust N Z J Surg. 1995; 65:466–9.

Fig. 1.
PRISMA flowchart of the study.
kja-22366f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Network graph. Overview of the network. Each regional anesthesia technique is represented at each corner of the polygon. The width of the lines connecting interventions are proportional to the number of trials assessing the comparisons. ESP: erector spinae plane, QL: quadratus lumborum, TAP: transversus abdominis plane.
kja-22366f2.tif
Fig. 3.
Bias assessment. Overview of the ROB 2 assessment.
kja-22366f3.tif
Fig. 4.
Forest plot of the network meta-analysis. Morphine consumption at 24 h expressed as MME. MME: morphine miligram equivalents, MD: mean difference, ESP: erector spinae plane, QL: quadratus lumborum, TAP: transversus abdominis plane.
kja-22366f4.tif
Table 1.
Results of the Network Meta-analysis
RA technique MME 24 h (mg) Pain at 12 h Pain at 24 h PONV Additional analgesics
MD (95% CI) P value MD (95% CI) P value MD (95% CI) P value OR (95% CI) P value OR (95% CI) P value
ESP block −4.96 (−6.81, −3.10) <0.001 −1.68 (−2.25, −1.12) <0.001 −1.33 (−1.96, −0.71) <0.001 0.46 (0.24, 0.87) 0.017 0.14 (0.06, 0.30) <0.001
Intraperitoneal −2.23 (−3.39, −1.06) <0.001 −0.55 (−0.77, −0.33) <0.001 −0.48 (−0.70, −0.26) <0.001 0.72 (0.54, 0.97) 0.032 0.46 (0.28, 0.76) 0.003
Paravertebral −6.64 (−9.67, −3.63) <0.001 −0.80 (−1.92, 0.32) 0.163 −1.00 (−2.15, 0.15) 0.088 0.58 (0.21, 1.55) 0.277 N/A N/A
QL block −3.58 (−6.05, −1.12) 0.004 −1.74 (−2.38, −1.09) <0.001 −1.18 (−1.91, −0.45) <0.001 0.42 (0.13, 1.32) 0.140 0.07 (0.01, 0.40) 0.003
Rectus sheath block −2.17 (−5.75, 1.40) 0.233 −0.41 (−1.20, 0.37) 0.301 −0.52 (−1.26, 0.22) 0.166 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Subcostal TAP block −2.84 (−4.08, −1.60) <0.001 −1.80 (−2.21, −1.36) <0.001 −1.11 (−1.50, −0.72) <0.001 0.53 (0.31, 0.92) 0.025 0.15 (0.06, 0.41) <0.001
TAP block −3.49 (−5.58, −1.40) 0.001 −1.80 (−2.21, −1.36) <0.001 −0.79 (−1.20, −0.39) <0.001 0.35 (0.22, 0.57) <0.001 0.12 (0.06, 0.24) <0.001
Wounds/ ports infiltration −2.37 (−3.56, −1.18) <0.001 −1.09 (−1.38, −0.82) <0.001 −0.68 (−0.94, −0.44) <0.001 0.59 (0.41, 0.84) 0.003 0.23 (0.15, 0.37) <0.001

RA: regional anesthesia, MME: morphine milligram equivalents, PONV: postoperative nausea and vomiting, MD: mean difference, OR: odds ratio, TAP: transversus abdominis plane, QL: quadratus lumborum, ESP: erector spinae RA: regional anesthesia, MME: morphine milligram equivalents, PONV: postoperative nausea and vomiting, MD: mean difference, OR: odds ratio, TAP: transversus abdominis plane, QL: quadratus lumborum, ESP: erector spinae plane. N/A: data not available.

Table 2.
Ranking among Treatments (P-score)
RA technique MME 24 h (mg) Pain at 12 h Pain at 24 h PONV Additional analgesics
ESP block 2 (0.845) 4 (0.756) 1 (0.862) 3 (0.663) 3 (0.681)
Intraperitoneal 8 (0.310) 7 (0.246) 8 (0.233) 7 (0.278) 6 (0.175)
Paravertebral 1 (0.958) 6 (0.358) 4 (0.621) 5 (0.482) N/A
QL block 3 (0.605) 3 (0.791) 2 (0.764) 2 (0.677) 1 (0.854)
Rectus sheath block 6 (0.355) 8 (0.196) 7 (0.316) N/A N/A
Subcostal TAP block 5 (0.467) 1 (0.835) 3 (0.758) 4 (0.539) 4 (0.628)
TAP block 4 (0.602) 2 (0.824) 5 (0.509) 1 (0.860) 2 (0.757)
Wounds/ports infiltration 7 (0.341) 5 (0.463) 6 (0.416) 6 (0.462) 5 (0.403)
Placebo 9 (0.015) 9 (0.029) 9 (0.016) 8 (0.035) 7 (0.000)

Described as rank and the surface under the corresponding cumulative ranking curve within parenthesis. RA: regional anesthesia, MME: morphine milligram equivalents, PONV: postoperative nausea and vomiting, ESP: erector spinae plane, QL: quadratus lumborum, TAP: transversus abdominis plane, N/A: data not available.

TOOLS
Similar articles