RESUMO
The transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block is a regional abdominal anaesthetic technique frequently used within non-cosmetic abdominal surgery. Its use in cosmetic abdominoplasty procedures is less frequently documented. The literature is devoid of a meta-analysis to quantitatively amalgamate the results of individual reports analysing the efficacy of TAP block compared to alternative analgesic methods in abdominoplasty surgery. The authors aimed to conduct the first meta-analysis within the literature to evaluate this technique's effectiveness in abdominoplasties. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were referred to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis. All observational and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent abdominoplasties with TAP blocks versus no TAP blocks were included in this study. The time taken to first analgesia and the amount of analgesia used were the primary outcome measures. The secondary outcome measures include severity of pain, time to mobilisation, and length of stay. Random effect modelling was used for the analysis. The time taken to the first analgesic was significantly lower in the TAP cohort (p <0.05). In addition, there was a lower incidence of postoperative nausea/vomiting(OR 0.18, 95%CI 0.04 - 0.90, p=0.04). Mean total opioid use and operative time were comparable between the TAP and no TAP groups. A qualitative review of the visual analogue scale for pain amongst the included studies showed that it was lower in the TAP group. The authors report the first meta-analysis within the literature showing the efficacy of the TAP block in abdominoplasties. Further high-quality trials are recommended to further the current evidence base.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The four-port laparoscopic technique is the standard approach for cholecystectomy. A three-port technique has been described, but there is no consensus over the outcomes and efficacy of this approach. The aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the three- and four-port techniques in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign diseases of the gallbladder. METHODS: The review was conducted according to a predefined protocol registered on PROSPERO. Two authors independently conducted an electronic database search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Outcomes are reported as risk ratios (RR), mean difference (m.d.), or standardized mean difference (s.m.d.) with 95 per cent confidence intervals. RESULTS: Eighteen trials were included with 2085 patients. Length of hospital stay and postoperative analgesia requirement favoured the three-port group (m.d. -0.29, 95 per cent c.i. -0.43 to -0.16 (P < 0.001); and s.m.d. -0.68, 95 per cent c.i. -1.03 to -0.33 (P < 0.001), respectively). There were no differences in length of procedure or success rate between the two groups (m.d. 0.90, 95 per cent c.i. -3.78 to 5.58 (P = 0.71) and RR 0.99, 95 per cent c.i. 0.97 to 1.01 (P = 0.17), respectively). There were no differences in adverse events. The overall quality of evidence was low. CONCLUSION: The three-port technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy is an option for appropriately trained surgeons who perform it regularly. However, the decision to use three ports should not be at the expense of safe dissection of Calot's triangle.