Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Posterior quadratus lumborum block versus intrathecal morphine analgesia after scheduled cesarean section: a prospective, randomized, controlled study
  1. Thomas Giral,
  2. Bernard Victor Delvaux,
  3. Davy Huynh,
  4. Bertrand Morel,
  5. Nabil Zanoun,
  6. Franck Ehooman,
  7. Thierry Garnier and
  8. Olivier Maupain
  1. Anaesthesia, Claude Galien Private Hospital, Quincy-sous-Senart, Île-de-France, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Thomas Giral, Anaesthesia, Claude Galien Private Hospital, Quincy-sous-Senart 91480, France; thomasgiral83{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Background During the postoperative period of elective cesarean section, intrathecal morphine is effective in the multimodal analgesic regimen, but can cause significant adverse effects. Bilateral posterior quadratus lumborum block could be alternatively used. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of both strategies as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen.

Methods This was a prospective, randomized, blinded, controlled study. 104 parturients were randomly selected to receive intrathecal morphine or posterior quadratus lumborum block during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. The primary endpoint was patient-controlled 24-hour cumulative intravenous morphine use. Secondary endpoints were 48-hour cumulative morphine use, static/dynamic pain scores, functional recovery (ObsQoR-11 questionnaire) and adverse effects.

Results There was no statistical difference in the mean cumulative morphine dose at 24-hour between groups (posterior quadratus lumborum block group, 13.7 (97.5% CI 10.4 to 16.9) mg; intrathecal morphine group, 11.1 (97.5% CI 8.4 to 13.8) mg, p=0.111). Pain scores did not show any difference between groups, excepted at 6 hours for the pain at cough/movement in favor of the posterior quadratus lumborum block group (p=0.013). A better recovery quality was observed at 24 hours in the posterior quadratus lumborum block group (p=0.009). Pruritus was more frequent in intrathecal morphine group parturients (35% vs 2%)

Conclusions No difference in cumulative morphine dose at 24 hours was observed in posterior quadratus lumborum block group compared with intrathecal morphine group. Posterior quadratus lumborum block can be considered an alternative to intrathecal morphine in cesarean postoperative analgesia, especially in cases of intolerance to morphine.

Trial registration number NCT04755712.

  • Obstetrics
  • Analgesia
  • Pain, Postoperative
  • Opioids
  • Nerve Block

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article and its supplementary material files. Further enquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

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.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article and its supplementary material files. Further enquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors significantly contributed to the study.

  • Funding This study was funded by GCS Ramsay Santé pour l'enseignement et la Recherche (Grant number: COS-RGDS-2019-12-006-P-MAUPAIN-O).

  • 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.