Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38764003›Full record

Trial reportObesity surgery2024

Laparoscopic-Guided Transversus Abdominis Plane (TAP) Block Combined with Port-Site Infiltration (PSI) for Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy in an ERABS Pathway: A Randomized, Prospective, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

Rita Cataldo, Vincenzo Bruni, Sabrina Migliorelli, Ida Francesca Gallo, Giuseppe Spagnolo, Giulia Gibin, Miriam Borgetti, Alessandro Strumia, Alessandro Ruggiero, Giuseppe Pascarella

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Obesity surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Rita CataldoUnit of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Vincenzo BruniUnit of Bariatric Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Sabrina MigliorelliUnit of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, 00128, Rome, Italy. sabrina.migliorelli@unicampus.it.ORCID 0009-0004-9694-9487
Ida Francesca GalloUnit of Bariatric Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe SpagnoloUnit of Bariatric Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Giulia GibinUnit of Bariatric Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Miriam BorgettiUnit of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Alessandro StrumiaUnit of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Alessandro RuggieroUnit of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe PascarellaUnit of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, 00128, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) commonly experience moderate to severe postoperative pain. We conducted a randomized, prospective double-blind placebo-controlled study to evaluate the analgesic effect of laparoscopic-guided TAP (LG-TAP) block after LSG in a high-volume bariatric center, applying an enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery (ERABS) pathway. MATERIAL AND

methodsOne hundred ten patients were randomly allocated to receive LG-TAP block with local anesthetic (LA) or saline solution (placebo), both combined with port-site infiltration with LA (LA-PSI). Primary outcome was pain score measured in post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and at 6, 12, and 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV), analgesic requirement, time to walking, time to flatus, length of hospital stay (LOS), and surgical complications.

resultsNo significant differences were observed between LG-TAP and placebo groups in postoperative analgesia, with a median (IQR) NRS of 2 (4.75-0) vs. 2 (5.25-0) in PACU, 5.5 (7-3) vs. 6 (7-4) at 6 h, 2 (6-0) vs. 3 (5.25-1.75) at 12 h, and 2 (3.75-0) vs. 1 (2-0) at 24 h; all p > 0.05. A significant difference was found in PONV in PACU (LG-TAP, 46%; placebo, 25%, p-value, 0.019) and at 6 h postoperatively (LG-TAP, 69%, placebo, 41%, p-value, 0.003). No differences were observed as regards other secondary outcomes.

conclusionOur results suggest that LG-TAP block is not related to more effective postoperative analgesia compared to placebo when LA-PSI is performed.

Indexed as

Abdominal MusclesAnesthetics, LocalGastrectomyLaparoscopyNerve BlockObesity, MorbidPostoperative PainAdultDouble-Blind MethodEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementAnesthetics, LocalAnalgesiaBariatric surgeryERABSPostoperative painRegional anesthesiaSleeve gastrectomyTAP block

Identifiers

PMID38764003

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.