Background Open inguinal herniorrhaphy (OIH) is a commonly performed surgical procedure with expected postoperative pain. Historically, an option for regional analgesia has been an ilioinguinal and iliohypogastric nerve block (IINB). More recently, the transmuscular quadratus lumborum block (QLB) has been used as an analgesic technique for a variety of abdominal and truncal surgical procedures. Given our own institutional experiences with the performance of QLB combined with the body of literature supporting the proximal blockade of the ilioinguinal and iliohypogastric nerves via this approach, we compared the analgesia provided by an IINB to a QLB. We hypothesized that the two blocks would provide equivalent analgesia, as defined by a difference of less than±2 points on the pain scale (0–10 numeric rating scale (NRS)), for patients undergoing OIH.
Methods Sixty patients scheduled for elective outpatient OIH under general anesthesia were randomized to preoperatively receive either an IINB or a transmuscular QLB with 0.25% bupivacaine/epinephrine/clonidine for postoperative analgesia. The primary endpoint was movement NRS pain scores at 8 hours. Secondary outcomes included resting NRS pain scores at 8 and 24 hours, movement NRS pain scores at 24 hours, incidence of opioid related side effects (nausea, vomiting, pruritus), time-to-first oral opioid analgesic, and total opioid consumption at 24 hours.
Results Fifty-nine patients were analyzed per an intention-to-treat approach (one patient was excluded because the surgical procedure was canceled). Movement pain scores at 8 hours were equivalent (IINB 5.10±3.02 vs QLB 5.03±3.01 (mean NRS±SD); two one-sided test mean difference (90% CI), 0.07 (−1.24 to 1.38), p ≤0.01). There were no differences between groups for any of the secondary endpoints.
Conclusion An IINB and a transmuscular QLB are equivalent with regards to their ability to provide postoperative analgesia after OIH.
- regional anesthesia
- acute pain
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors CJE: helped design, execute, analyze and interpret the results of the study and also drafted the original manuscript and participated in subsequent revisions. RW, JDT, SWD, JDJ, JWR and DSH: helped design, execute, analyze and interpret the results of the study and also participated in revising the original manuscript. GR: helped design, analyze and interpret the results of the study and also participated in drafting original manuscript as well as subsequent revisions.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval This study was approved by the Wake Forest University Health Sciences’ Institutional Review Board (IRB #40354).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request. Individual participant data that underlie the results reported in this article, after deidentification (text, tables, figures, and appendices).
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.