According to a Cochrane review published in 2010, TAP-block resulted in a significantly smaller morphine requirement in the first 48 postoperative hours compared with no TAP-block or saline placebo (mean difference -28.50, 95% CI, -38.92 to -18.08) while it reduced pain at rest in 2/3 studies. However, the authors concluded that there was only limited evidence to support the use of TAP-block and that further studies comparing TAP-block to other local analgesic approaches were needed. Moreover, none of the individual studies had looked at patients undergoing nephrectomy.
Since the publication of the Cochrane review, an abundance of TAP-block studies have appeared and its effectiveness compared to placebo has been confirmed (
10). In addition, a number of studies have compared the method to other forms of local anesthetics. Some of these have pointed to an advantage of TAP-block over wound site infiltration after gynecological procedures and hernia repair in children (
11,
12). Meanwhile other studies suggest that wound site infiltration is either superior or at least equivalent to the more complicated TAP-block in gynecologic laparoscopy, gastric-bypass surgery, inguinal hernia repair, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and after open radical prostatectomy (
13-
15).
However, to date only two studies have investigated TAP-block in conjunction with nephrectomy, both utilizing a placebo control group (
7,
8). In the first study by Hosgood et al. (
7), the authors found that single site TAP-block with bupivacaine (0.375%) incurred a reduction in early morphine use (up to six hours after surgery, P = 0.015) but not in overall morphine use (P = 0.771) when compared to saline TAP-block injection. Meanwhile the method resulted in significantly less pain on postoperative days one (P = 0.003) and two (P = 0.031). Likewise, the second study by Parikh et al. (
8), found that ultrasound guided bupivacaine TAP-block at the end of surgery reduced postoperative tramadol consumption compared to saline injection (P < 0.05). It also reduced the VAS score up to 12 hours postoperatively with the largest benefit observed at 30 minutes after the surgery (0.77 vs. 3.23, P < 0.05).
The current study is the first to compare the effects of preoperative TAP-block to wound infiltration with local anesthetics. Considering the relative success with TAP-block reported in the literature the current study results were somewhat disappointing. Thus, unilateral TAP-block seemed inferior to local wound infiltration. In spite of these disappointing results, it should be noted that TAP-block is not an insufficient pain killer per say as the mean VAS score was still relatively low and as most of the patients undergoing nephrectomy in the current study were kept under the critical pain level. In addition, it is important to consider the possibility of other TAP-block protocols. The current study used unilateral single point TAP-block immediately prior to surgery. Meanwhile, bilateral dual TAP-block in the postoperative care unit has previously shown to reduce pain and opioid use (
16). While it seems somewhat illogical that bilateral TAP-block would in itself improve pain control after a unilateral procedure, the timing of the administration may be crucial. Thus, the half-life of ropivacaine is approximately two hours. Although the same drug was used in the control group, the mean surgical time of 162 minutes in group A could mean that the effects had begun to wear off in the current study, meaning that postoperative TAP-block administration may be the optimal choice. Likewise, it is possible that other drugs may be better suited for TAP-block and it is suggested that the addition of other drugs such as dexamethasone (
17,
18), hyaluronidase, and epinephrine may enhance the analgesic effects. In any case, more research is clearly needed to establish the optimal drug regimen.
As an additional finding, the current study noted that the operation time was significantly increased due to the time spent on the TAP-block administration. This factor is not well described in the literature and, although the administration time may decrease with experience, it is certainly worth more attention in future studies. The current study did not find any other adverse effects of TAP-block and generally, few side effects of TAP-block were cited in the literature. However, potentially toxic blood concentrations of ropivacaine are found in the patients’ blood following the procedure and seizures were reported (
19,
20).
The most important limitation of the current study was that it only recorded pain and morphine consumption for the first postoperative hour. However, based on the preceding nephrectomy studies the benefits are unlikely to improve over time. Other limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the fact that the control group was derived from another study aimed at reducing the postoperative hospital stay following radical nephrectomy. However, when controlling the possible confounders on multivariate analyses, the differences between the groups were only attenuated. Small sample size is another limitation of this study. Although there may be unrecognized confounding factors, it is therefore unlikely that the administration of unilateral single point TAP-block is superior to wound infiltration with local anesthetics in the early postoperative phase as hypothesized. Certainly, the current study findings do not justify the increased surgical time and potential risk of seizures with TAP-block.
The current study did not show a benefit of single point unilateral TAP-block compared to routine wound infiltration with local anesthetics in the early postoperative phase. Thus, the method cannot be recommended based on the obtained results. Based on the literature as a whole, TAP-block in conjunction with nephrectomy should be considered experimental at this stage. In future studies, it is important to consider alternative TAP-block protocols in order to secure optimal results.