Transversus abdominis plane block versus local anaesthetic wound infiltration for analgesia after caesarean section
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block and local anaesthetic wound infiltration are used to relieve pain after caesarean section. OBJECTIVES To determine whether TAP block or local anaesthetic wound infiltration is the better analgesic option after caesarean section. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, Web of Science up to June 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA We retrieved randomised controlled trials comparing TAP block with wound infiltration after caesarean section. Primary outcome was pain score during rest (analogue scale, 0 to 10) at 2 h postoperatively, analysed according to the TAP block technique (ultrasound-guided/landmark-guided), anaesthetic strategy (spinal/general), intrathecal fentanyl (yes/no) and multimodal analgesia (yes/no). Secondary pain-related outcomes included pain scores during rest at 12 and 24 h, and total intravenous morphine consumption at 2, 12 and 24 h. We sought rates of block complications, including postoperative infection, haematoma, visceral injury and local anaesthetic systemic toxicity. RESULTS Seven trials, totalling 475 patients, were identified. There was no difference in pain score during rest at 2 h between groups. Subgroup analyses revealed no differences related to TAP block technique ( P = 0.64), anaesthetic strategy ( P = 0.53), administration of intrathecal fentanyl ( P = 0.59) or presence of multimodal analgesia ( P = 0.57). Pain score during rest at 12 h and intravenous morphine consumption at 2 and 12 h were identical in both groups. Data were insufficient to compare block complications. Overall quality of evidence was moderate. CONCLUSION There is moderate level evidence that TAP block and wound infiltration provide similar postoperative analgesia after caesarean section. TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER PROSPERO CRD42020208046.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".