The analgesic efficacy of transverse abdominis plane block versus epidural analgesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of epidural analgesia and transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block. TAP block has gained popularity to provide postoperative analgesia after abdominal surgery but its advantage over epidural analgesia is disputed. METHODS: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines. Only trials comparing TAP block with epidural analgesia were included. The primary outcome was pain score at rest (analog scale, 0-10) on postoperative day 1 analyzed in subgroups according to the population (children and adults). Secondary outcomes included rate of hypotension, length of stay, and functional outcomes (time to first bowel sound, time to first flatus). RESULTS: Ten controlled trials, including 505 patients (195 children and 310 adults), were identified. Pain scores at rest on postoperative day 1 were equivalent for TAP block and epidural analgesia groups in children (mean difference: 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.1 to 0.6; I = 0%; P = .15) and in adults (mean difference: 0.5; 95% CI: -0.1 to 1.0; I = 81%; P = .10). The quality of evidence for our primary outcome was moderate according to the GRADE system. The epidural analgesia group experienced a higher rate of hypotension (relative risk: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.04-0.38; I = 0%; P = .0002), while hospital length of stay was shorter in the TAP block group (mean difference: -0.6 days; 95% CI: -0.9 to -0.3 days; I = 0%; P < .0001), without impact on functional outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is moderate evidence that TAP block and epidural analgesia are equally effective in treating postoperative pain in both pediatric and adult patients, while TAP block is associated with fewer episodes of hypotension and reduced length of stay.
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 | 0.022 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".