The Transversus Abdominis Plane Block, When Used as Part of a Multimodal Regimen Inclusive of Intrathecal Morphine, Does Not Improve Analgesia After Cesarean Delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block has been shown to provide analgesia for lower abdominal wall incisions. We evaluated the efficacy of the TAP block for post-cesarean delivery (CD) patients used as a part of a multimodal regimen. METHODS: Women undergoing elective CD under spinal anesthesia were randomized to receive the TAP block with ropivacaine (n = 50) or placebo (n = 50), in addition to a standard postoperative analgesic regimen inclusive of intrathecal opioids. At the end of the surgical procedure, all the patients received bilateral TAP blocks under real-time ultrasound guidance, with either 20 mL of ropivacaine 0.375% or saline, on each side. Each patient was assessed at 6, 12, 24, and 48 hrs postoperatively, and again 6 weeks after the surgical procedure. The primary outcome was the difference in visual analog scale pain scores with movement at 24 hrs postpartum. Other outcomes assessed were analgesic consumption, maternal satisfaction, and incidence of adverse effects. RESULTS: One hundred women were recruited, and 96 completed the study. The mean (SD) visual analog scale pain scores on movement at 24 hrs were not different between the ropivacaine and placebo groups (3.4 [2.4] and 3.2 [2.2] cm, respectively, P = 0.47). The pain scores at other times, and the supplemental opioid consumption, were also similar between the 2 groups. The overall incidence of pain at 6 weeks postpartum was 8.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The TAP block, when used as part of a multimodal regimen inclusive of intrathecal morphine, does not improve the quality of post-CD analgesia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".