Background Posterior quadratus lumborum block (QLB) and intrathecal morphine are accepted analgesic strategies in laparoscopic liver resection, but their effects have not been compared after laparoscopic donor hepatectomy. This study was planned to perform this comparison.
Methods Fifty-six donors were randomized to receive bilateral posterior (QLB2, 20 mL of 0.375% ropivacaine on each side, 150 mg total) or preoperative injection of 0.4 mg morphine sulfate intrathecally. Primary outcome was resting pain score at 24 hour postsurgery. Secondary outcomes included cumulative opioid consumption and recovery parameters. Serial plasma ropivacaine concentrations were measured in QLB group. Only the outcome assessor was properly blinded.
Results Mean resting pain score at 24-hour postsurgery was 4.19±1.66 in QLB group (n=27) and 3.07±1.41 in intrathecal morphine group (n=27, p=0.04). Mean difference (QLB group-intrathecal morphine group) was 1.11 (95% CI 0.27 to 1.95), and the upper limit of CI was higher than prespecified non-inferiority margin (δ=1), indicating an inferior effect of QLB. Cumulative opioid consumption was significantly higher in QLB group at 24 hours and 48 hours postsurgery. QLB group exhibited lower incidence of postoperative pruritus at all time points, and there were no differences in other recovery outcomes. All measured ropivacaine concentrations were below the threshold for systemic toxicity (4.3 µg/mL).
Conclusions Bilateral posterior QLB elicited higher resting pain scores at 24-hour after laparoscopic donor hepatectomy than intrathecal morphine and did not meet the definition of non-inferiority.
Trial registration number KCT0005360.
- regional anesthesia
- pain, postoperative
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
SL and RAK are joint first authors.
SL and RAK contributed equally.
Contributors SL, RAK, and JSK were involved in the planning, conception, and design of the study, analyzed and interpreted the data, and wrote and revised the manuscript. MSG and GSK were involved in the planning and conducting the study, in the reporting and acquisition of data, analyzed the data, and provided critical comments. JMK and G-SC performed all surgeries and postoperative management, interpreted the data, and provided critical comments. JSK is responsible for the overall content as a guarantor.
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.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.