Advertisement

Journal of Anesthesia

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 39–46 | Cite as

The efficacy of continuous subcostal transversus abdominis plane block for analgesia after living liver donation: a retrospective study

  • Akihiko MaedaEmail author
  • Sho Carl Shibata
  • Hiroshi Wada
  • Shigeru Marubashi
  • Takahiko Kamibayashi
  • Hidetoshi Eguchi
  • Yuji Fujino
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Postoperative pain management for living liver donors has become a major concern as a result of the increasing number of living liver donations. Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block has been known to provide effective analgesia for abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of ultrasound-guided continuous subcostal TAP block as a part of a multimodal analgesic regimen in comparison with conventional intravenous (IV) fentanyl-based analgesia in living liver donors.

Methods

Thirty-two donors were retrospectively classified into either the continuous subcostal TAP block group (TAP group) or the IV fentanyl-based analgesia group (control group). TAP group donors received bilateral continuous subcostal TAP infusion of 0.125 % levobupivacaine at 6 ml/h. Control group donors did not receive any neural blockade.

Results

Cumulative fentanyl consumption was significantly lower in the TAP group for 48 h (P < 0.01) as compared to the control group. Further, the donors in the TAP group had significantly lower incidence of nausea and vomiting during 24–48 h postoperatively (P < 0.01) and fewer delays in the initiation of oral intake than those in the control group (P = 0.02).

Conclusions

In conclusion, continuous subcostal TAP block provided an effective opioid-sparing analgesia for living liver donors.

Keywords

Liver transplantation Living donor Postoperative pain Nerve blocks Local anesthetics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all the nurses, surgeons, anesthesiologists, and other staff who made the study possible. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    The Japanese Liver Transplantation Society. Liver transplantation in Japan—registry by the Japanese liver transplantation society. Jpn J Transplant. 2014;49:261–74.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Villa VH, Lo CM, Chen CL. Ethics and rationale of living-donor liver transplantation in Asia. Transplantation. 2003;75:S2–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yong BH, Tsui SL, Leung CC, Lo CM, Liu CL, Fan ST, Young K. Management of postoperative analgesia in living liver donors. Transplant Proc. 2000;32:2110.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke H, Chandy T, Srinivas C, Ladak S, Okubo N, Mitsakakis N, Holtzman S, Grant D, McCluskey SA, Katz J. Epidural analgesia provides better pain management after live liver donation: a retrospective study. Liver Transplant. 2011;17:315–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee SH, Gwak MS, Choi SJ, Park HG, Kim GS, Kim MH, Ahn HJ, Kim J, Kwon CH, Kim TS. Prospective, randomized study of ropivacaine wound infusion versus intrathecal morphine with intravenous fentanyl for analgesia in living donors for liver transplantation. Liver Transplant. 2013;19:1036–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khan J, Katz J, Montbriand J, Ladak S, McCluskey S, Srinivas C, Ko R, Grant D, Bradbury A, LeManach Y, Clarke H. Surgically placed abdominal wall catheters on postoperative analgesia and outcomes after living liver donation. Liver Transplant. 2014;21:478–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chan SK, Lai PB, Li PT, Wong J, Karmakar MK, Lee KF, Gin T. The analgesic efficacy of continuous wound instillation with ropivacaine after open hepatic surgery. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:1180–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beaussier M, El’Ayoubi H, Schiffer E, Rollin M, Parc Y, Mazoit JX, Azizi L, Gervaz P, Rohr S, Biermann C, Lienhart A, Eledjam JJ. Continuous preperitoneal infusion of ropivacaine provides effective analgesia and accelerates recovery after colorectal surgery. Anesthesiology. 2007;107:461–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fassoulaki A, Chassiakos D, Melemeni A. Intermittent epidural vs continuous wound infusion of ropivacaine for acute and chronic pain control after hysterectomy or myomectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Pain Med. 2014;15:1603–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hafizoglu MC, Katircioglu K, Ozkalkanli MY, Savaci S. Bupivacaine infusion above or below the fascia for postoperative pain treatment after abdominal hysterectomy. Anesth Analg. 2008;107:2068–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rackelboom T, Le Strat S, Silvera S, Schmitz T, Bassot A, Goffinet F, Ozier Y, Beaussier M, Mignon A. Improving continuous wound infusion effectiveness for postoperative analgesia after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:893–900.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fredman B, Zohar E, Tarabykin A, Shapiro A, Mayo A, Klein E, Jedeikin R. Bupivacaine wound instillation via an electronic patient-controlled analgesia device and a double-catheter system does not decrease postoperative pain or opioid requirements after major abdominal surgery. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:189–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Charlton S, Cyna AM, Middleton P, Griffiths JD. Perioperative transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks for analgesia after abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;CD007705.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sivapurapu V, Vasudevan A, Gupta S, Badhe AS. Comparison of analgesic efficacy of transversus abdominis plane block with direct infiltration of local anesthetic into surgical incision in lower abdominal gynecological surgeries. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2013;29:71–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aveline C, Le Hetet H, Le Roux A, Vautier P, Cognet F, Vinet E, Tison C, Bonnet F. Comparison between ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane and conventional ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks for day-case open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:380–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Allcock E, Spencer E, Frazer R, Applegate G, Buckenmaier C 3rd. Continuous transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block catheters in a combat surgical environment. Pain Med. 2010;11:1426–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hebbard P, Fujiwara Y, Shibata Y, Royse C. Ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2007;35:616–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hebbard P. Subcostal transversus abdominis plane block under ultrasound guidance. Anesth Analg. 2008;106:674–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu Y, Liu F, Tang H, Wang Q, Chen L, Wu H, Zhang X, Miao J, Zhu M, Hu C, Goldsworthy M, You J, Xu X. The analgesic efficacy of subcostal transversus abdominis plane block compared with thoracic epidural analgesia and intravenous opioid analgesia after radical gastrectomy. Anesth Analg. 2013;117:507–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hebbard PD, Barrington MJ, Vasey C. Ultrasound-guided continuous oblique subcostal transversus abdominis plane blockade: description of anatomy and clinical technique. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010;35:436–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kadam RV, Field JB. Ultrasound-guided continuous transverse abdominis plane block for abdominal surgery. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2011;27:333–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Niraj G, Kelar A, Hart E, Horst C, Malik D, Yeow C, Singh B, Chaudhri S. Comparison of analgesic efficacy of four-quadrant transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block and continuous posterior TAP analgesia with epidural analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery: an open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Anaesthesia. 2014;69:348–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Farag E, Guirguis MN, Helou M, Dalton JE, Ngo F, Ghobrial M, O’Hara J, Seif J, Krishnamurthi V, Goldfarb D. Continuous transversus abdominis plane block catheter analgesia for postoperative pain control in renal transplant. J Anesth. 2015;29:4–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maeda A, Shibata SC, Kamibayashi T, Fujino Y. Continuous subcostal oblique transversus abdominis plane block provides more effective analgesia than single-shot block after gynaecological laparotomy: a randomised controlled study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015;32:514–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Niraj G, Kelkar A, Fox AJ. Oblique sub-costal transversus abdominis plane (TAP) catheters: an alternative to epidural analgesia after upper abdominal surgery. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:1137–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Niraj G, Kelkar A, Jeyapalan I, Graff-Baker P, Williams O, Darbar A, Maheshwaran A, Powell R. Comparison of analgesic efficacy of subcostal transversus abdominis plane blocks with epidural analgesia following upper abdominal surgery. Anaesthesia. 2011;66:465–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Barrington MJ, Ivanusic JJ, Rozen WM, Hebbard P. Spread of injectate after ultrasound-guided subcostal transversus abdominis plane block: a cadaveric study. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:745–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Børglum J, Jensen K, Christensen AF, Hoegburg LCG, Johansen SS, Lönnqvist PA, Jansen T. Distribution patterns, dermatomal anesthesia, and ropivacaine serum concentrations after bilateral dual transversus abdominis plane block. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2012;37:294–301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thornton PC, Buggy DJ. Local anaesthetic wound infusion for acute postoperative pain: a viable option? Br J Anaesth. 2011;107:656–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnesthesiologyNational Hospital Organization Osaka National HospitalOsakaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Graduate School of MedicineOsaka UniversitySuitaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of MedicineOsaka UniversitySuitaJapan

Personalised recommendations