Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 115455

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"

Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018

Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."

Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018

Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."

Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
On Sep 2018

Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."

Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata

Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".

Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".

Dr. Mamta Gupta
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.

Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."

Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
On May 11,2011

Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."

Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
On April 2011

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.

Dr. Anuradha
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : October | Volume : 16 | Issue : 10 | Page : UC13 - UC16 Full Version

Ultrasound Guided versus Peripheral Nerve Stimulator Guided Transversus Abdominis Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Patients undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomised Clinical Study

Published: October 1, 2022 | DOI:
Kapil Prajapati, Kuldeep Kumar Patel, Hansraj Baghel, Ravi Prakash, Alok Pratap Singh

1. Postgraduate Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, Shyam Shah Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Shyam Shah Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India. 3. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Shyam Shah Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India. 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Superspeciality Block, Shyam Shah Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India. 5. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Superspeciality Block, Shyam Shah Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Ravi Prakash,
Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Superspeciality Block, Shyam Shah Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India.


Introduction: The Transversus Abdominis Plane (TAP) block is a relatively simple technique that provides analgesia that, as part of a multimodal analgesic treatment, may be useful in the prevention of postoperative pain. Ultrasound (USG) versus Peripheral Nerve Stimulator (PNS) guided TAP blocks are being frequently given postoperatively for pain these days in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Aim: To assess the analgesic efficacy of USG guided and PNS guided transversus abdominis plane block in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Materials and Methods: The randomised clinical study was conducted in the Department of Anaesthesiology, Shyam Shah Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India, from March 2020 to June 2021. Total 90 adult patients were enrolled and randomly allocated into three groups. Group 1 (n=30) received bilateral USG guided TAP block with 20 mL of 0.375% ropivacaine along with standard postoperative analgesia regimen. Group 2 (n=30) received bilateral PNS guided TAP block with 20 mL 0.375% ropivacaine along with standard postoperative analgesia regimen. Group 3 (Control) (n=30) received standard postoperative analgesia regimen consisting of inj. paracetamol iv 1 gm (six hourly) and inj. diclofenac 75 mg i.v. (12 hourly). Each patient was assessed for VAS score, duration of analgesia, total analgesic consumption and patient satisfaction for 24 hours postoperatively.

Results: The average mean VAS score in first 24 hrs was 2.04±0.80 in group 1, 2.10±0.70 in group 2 and 3.18±0.63 in group 3. The duration of analgesia was least in group 3 (5.8±2.31 hrs) followed by group 2 (9.67±2.47 hrs) and maximum in group 1 (11.87±2.97 hrs). The total tramadol requirement in first 24 hours postoperatively was 126.67±44.98 mg in group 1, 140±62.15 mg in group 2 and 226.67±63.97 mg in group 3.

Conclusion: Postoperative analgesia with USG and PNS guided TAP block enables better pain control and less analgesic consumption. PNS guided TAP block is good alternative when compared with control for postoperative analgesia when USG machine is not available.


Duration of surgery, Pain control, Rescue analgesic, Satisfied

Postoperative pain is universal phenomenon, which is aggravated by associated muscle spasm and visceral distension. Anaesthesiologists have succeeded in numbing the patient’s pain during surgery to a large part, but once the procedure is through, the patient must endure the agony of postoperative pain.

The effect of postoperative pain is largely psychological, causing distress and anxiety therefore most obvious motive, for relieving is on humanitarian grounds. Postoperative pain relief reduce the incidence of pulmonary complications like hypoxaemia, hypercarbia, retention of secretions, atelectasis and pneumonia and allows early movement in bed and early ambulation, thus preventing deep vein thrombosis. It will thus reduce the average postoperative hospital stay and reduce some burden on the health care delivery system.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a major surgical procedure that results in substantial postoperative pain and discomfort. These patients required a multimodal postoperative pain control regimen that provides high quality analgesia with minimal side effects. Opioids, such as morphine, administered via a Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA) device, continue to be the cornerstone of postoperative analgesic regimes for patients who have undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Opioids, on the other hand, can cause serious side effects such as drowsiness, nausea and vomiting (1),(2),(3).

Although, various alternative modalities are available for postoperative analgesia such as epidural catheter placement, opioids administration, wound infiltration with local anaesthetics, Transversus Abdominis Plane (TAP) block but they are associatedwith noticeable complications. For example: epidural catheter placement for postoperative analgesia requires significant care, frequent “top-ups” with local anaesthetics and may be associated with local anaesthetic toxicity (4). Likewise postoperative opioid administration is associated with higher incidence of nausea, vomiting, pruritis, respiratory depression and delayed ambulance (1),(2),(3). There is also small evidence to hold up the use of instillation of local anaesthetics into the wound incision for postoperative pain relief. On the contrary, TAP block is a single shot technique and has negligible side effects but still provides a substantial period of postoperative analgesia.

The TAP block is a regional anaesthetic method that offers analgesia to the parietal peritoneum, as well as the skin and muscles of the anterior abdominal wall. Many authors have used TAP block effectively for postoperative pain relief (5),(6),(7),(8).

There are three main approaches for TAP block i.e., anatomical landmark-based approach double pop technique, double pop technique with PNS guided confirmation and USG guided technique. In majority of the studies, ultrasound was used for TAP block (9),(10),(11),(12). Only in a few studies, “double pop” technique was used to give TAP block (5),(6). This is particularly significant in context of India, where most operating rooms lack the availability of USG machine because of the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) act and other stringent laws. Hence, there is an inertia regarding adoption of TAP block into clinical practice because of high failure rates associated with the anatomical landmark based “double pop” approach. In such scenario, use of peripheral nerve stimulator can be an effective option for confirming the placement of the needle in transversus abdominis plane. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to assess the analgesic efficacy of USG guided and anatomical landmark-based approach (double pop technique) with PNS guided TAP block in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Material and Methods

This randomised clinical study was carried out in the Department of Anaesthesiology, Shyam Shah Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India, from March 2020 to June 2021. The ethical clearance was obtained by the Institutional Ethics Committee (Approval number: IEC/SS/MC/2020/4225 dated February 28, 2020). The study was performed in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Inclusion and Exclusion criteria: Ninety adult patients with the American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grades I and II, posted for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were selected for the study.

Patients who refused to give consent for the study, psychological disorders, allergy to local anaesthetics and patients who had infection at the block site were excluded from the study.

Patients fulfilling the selection criteria were randomised using computer-based randomisation software in three groups, each of 30 patients (Table/Fig 1).

Group 1: Received bilateral USG guided TAP block with 20 mL of 0.375% ropivacaine along with standard postoperative analgesia regimen.
Group 2: Received bilateral PNS guided TAP block with 20 mL 0.375% ropivacaine along with standard postoperative analgesia regimen.
Group 3 (Control): Received standard postoperative analgesia regimen consisting of inj. paracetamol intravenous 1 gm (six hourly) and inj. diclofenac 75 mg intravenous (12 hourly).

A detailed history of all selected patients was taken. A thorough preanaesthetic evaluation including the airway assessment was performed. The patients were explained about the entire procedure and informed consent was taken. They were also educated about the use of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and patient’s satisfaction scale.

Study Procedure

The patients were shifted to the operation theatre. Monitors were attached and preoperative baseline parameters viz heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, SpO2 and electrocardiographic tracings were observed and carefully recorded. After preoxygenation with 100% oxygen for three minutes, anaesthesia was induced with a standard anaesthetic protocol using fentanyl 2 mcg/kg, propofol 1.5-2.5 mg/kg and tracheal intubation with appropriate sized cuffed endotracheal tube was facilitated by atracurium 0.5 mg/kg. Anaesthesia was maintained with nitrous oxide (60%) and isoflurane {Minimal Alveolar Concentration (MAC) 0.8-1.2)} in oxygen. The intra-abdominal pressure was maintained at around 12 mmHg in all patients throughout the procedure.

At the end of surgery, after assuring full asepsis, TAP block was given either by anatomical landmark-based approach with PNS guided confirmation or by USG guided.

USG guided transversus abdominis plane block: The USG guided TAP block was performed using a midaxillary approach, under real time guidance with a high frequency ultrasound probe (Mindray DC30). On reaching this plane, the local anaesthetic solution was injected, which lead to expansion of the TAP, that appeared as a hypoechoic space. Careful aspiration was performed before injection to exclude vascular puncture. After confirming negative aspiration of blood, 20 mL of 0.375% ropivacaine was administered on each side in all group (US-TAP) patients.

PNS guided TAP block: An insulated 20 gauge, 17 degree bevelled loco plex needle of length 50 mm was used to conduct a bilateral TAP block using an anatomical landmark-based technique (double pop-up) with PNS guided confirmation. By stimulating the subcostal nerve contractions of the transversalis and rectus muscle can be elicited. Direct stimulation of the muscles can be ruled out by using a low intensity current (≤0.5 mA). After confirming negative aspiration of blood, 20 mL of 0.375 % ropivacaine was administered on each side in all group (PNS-TAP) patients.

At the end of surgery, residual neuromuscular block was reversed by using neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg and glycopyrrolate 0.01 mg/kg intravenously and patients were extubated when respiration was sufficient and were awake to be able to follow commands.

Patients were transferred to the Postanaesthesia Care Unit (PACU) after the operation. A standard postoperative analgesic regimen consisting of inj. paracetamol 1 gm i.v. six hourly and inj. diclofenac (75 mg/mL) 1 mL diluted in 100 mL normal saline i.v. 12 hourly was commenced on admission to PACU in all the patients. The presence and severity of pain was assessed systematically. This assessment was performed in the PACU at 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, 18 and 24 hours after TAP block. All patients were asked to give scores for their pain at rest. Pain severity was measured using a VAS. A VAS is a measurement tool that attempts to assess a trait or attitude that is thought to range throughout a continuum of values but is difficult to measure directly (13).

The score is calculated by measuring the distance (mm) between the “no pain” anchor and the patient’s mark on a 10 cm line with a ruler, yielding a range of 0-100. A higher score implies that the pain is more intense. The following cut points on the pain VAS have been recommended based on the distribution of pain VAS scores in postsurgical patients who described their postoperative pain intensity as none, mild, moderate, or severe: no pain (0-4 mm), mild pain (5-44 mm), moderate pain (45-74 mm) and severe pain (75-100 mm). If the VAS score for the patient was ≥4, even after the administration of institutional postoperative analgesic regimen, intravenous tramadol at an incremental dose of 2 mg/kg was given as rescue analgesia. The time to first dose of rescue analgesic given was recorded. The total consumption of tramadol over 24 hours was also noted.

Statistical Analysis

Result was analysed using Graph Pad Prism version 7.0. Data for continuous variable was presented as Mean±SD and the categorical variables were presented as frequency and percentage. Independent t-test/ Mann-Whitney U-test were done to compare the continuous variables based on the distribution of data. Chi-square and Fisher’s-exact test was done to check the association between two categorical variables. The p-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.


The three groups were comparable with respect to their age, sex, weight, height and duration of surgery without any statistically significant difference (Table/Fig 2).

The VAS score was statistically significantly higher (p-value <0.0001) in group 3 than the groups 1 and 2 throughout the period of observation (Table/Fig 3),(Table/Fig 4). The average mean VAS score in first 24 hours was 2.04±0.80 in group 1, 2.10±0.70 in group 2 and 3.18±0.63 in group 3.

Time of first request to rescue analgesic for group 1, group 2 and group 3 showing that there is the significant difference between all three groups with (p-value <0.005).

Total tramadol requirement in first 24 hours postoperatively was higher in group 3 as compared to group 1 and group 2 which was statistically significant (p-value <0.0001) while between the group 1 and group 2 difference was statistically insignificant (Table/Fig 5).

The (Table/Fig 6) shows that none of the patients were highly dissatisfied in group 1 and group 2 as compare to group 3. The highly dissatisfied patients were in group 3. The difference in the patient satisfaction score between groups is statistically significant (p-value <0.0001).


Postoperative pain in laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a conglomerate of three different and clinically separate components: incisional pain (somatic pain) visceral pain (deep intra-abdominal pain), and shoulder pain (presumably referred visceral pain (12). Characteristically, the pain following laparoscopic cholecystectomy is highly variable in intensity and duration and is largely unpredictable. So, it is an essential task to provide adequate postoperative analgesia.

It was found that the average of mean VAS score in first 24 hours was lowest in ultrasound guided TAP group when compared to peripheral nerve stimulator guided TAP and control groups. Similar results were shown by Aveline C et al., who found that median VAS pain scores at rest were lower in the ultrasound guided TAP group as compared to blind ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve (IHN) block with levobupivacaine at four hours (11 vs 15, p-value=0.04), at 12 hours (20 vs 30, p-value=0.0014), and at 24 hours (29 vs 33, p-value=0.013) (14).

Peng K et al., who concluded that as compared with control, ultrasound guided TAP block reduced the postoperative pain intensity both at rest and on movement at 0, 2, 4, 8, and 24 hours (15). Kahsay DT et al., showed that VAS scores were significantly lower in the TAP block group (PNS guided) at rest, deep breathing, intentional coughing and mobilisation as compare to control group receiving conventional analgesia (p-value <0.05) (16).

In the present study, difference between group 1 and 3, 2 and 3, and 1 and 2 were statistically significant (p-value <0.05) and findings were in concordance with the studies of Mankikar MG et al., who found that time for first rescue analgesia in study group was prolonged from 4.1 hours (control) to 9.53 hours (USG TAP) p-value <0.01631 (17). Khedkar SM et al., noted the time to rescue analgesia was more in the group who received USG guided TAP block (7.22 hours) as compared to the group who received blind (6.80 hours) block (p-value <0.05) (18).

Oak S et al., found that time for first rescue analgesia was prolonged significantly in the USG guided TAP block group (group U) (18.88±6.18 hours) as compared to the anatomical landmark guided TAP block group (group A) (8.38±2.58 hours) p-value <0.05 (19). The total analgesic requirement in first 24 hours postoperatively was lowest in USG TAP group when compared to PNS TAP and control groups. Similar result was shown in the study of Niraj G et al., who used morphine as rescue analgesic, found that USG guided TAP significantly reduced postoperative morphine consumption in first 24 hours 28±18 mg vs 50±19 mg (p-value=0.002) (20).

Belavy D et al., found that total morphine use in 24 hours was reduced in the bilateral USG TAP group with 0.5% ropivacaine (median 18.0 mg) when compared with the placebo group bilateral USG TAP with 0.5% saline (median 31.5 mg, p-value <0.05) (21). Bharti N et al., observed in their study, 65% decrease in 24 hour total morphine consumption was observed in the TAP group compared with the control group (p-value <0.0001) (22).

In the present study, patient’s satisfaction score was assessed at 24 hours after surgery, using a 5-point patient’s satisfaction scoring system to evaluate the level of postoperative analgesic satisfaction. Patients who received USG guided and PNS guided block had high level of satisfaction than those who received only standard analgesic regimen.


The postoperative pain, which is a subjective experience and can be difficult to quantify objectively. The disadvantage of TAP block is the inability to block visceral pain, which can be substantial. The other major limitation is dermatomal limitation of block. The study was conducted in a single centre.


This study concluded that postoperative analgesia with USG and PNS guided TAP block enables better pain control, less rescue analgesia consumption and less adverse event than control group who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. USG guided TAP block, was better in reducing postoperative VAS score and rescue analgesia consumption than PNS guided TAP block.


Stanley G, Appadu B, Mead M, Rowbotham DJ. Dose requirements, efficacy and side effects of morphine and pethidine delivered by patient-controlled analgesia after gynaecological surgery. Br J Anaesth. 1996;76(4):484-86. [crossref] [PubMed]
Woodhouse A, Mather LE. The effect of duration of dose delivery with patientcontrolled analgesia on the incidence of nausea and vomiting after hysterectomy. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;45:57-62. [crossref] [PubMed]
Ng A, Swami A, Smith G, Davidson AC, Emembolu J. The analgesic effects of intraperitoneal and incisional bupivacaine with epinephrine after total abdominal hysterectomy. Anesth Analg. 2002;95(1):158-62. [crossref] [PubMed]
Qin C, Liu Y, Xiong J, Wang X, Dong Q, Su T, et al. The analgesic efficacy compared ultrasound-guided continuous transverse abdominis plane block with epidural analgesia following abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020;20(1):52. Doi: 10.1186/s12871-020-00969-0. PMID: 32111162; PMCID: PMC7048149. [crossref] [PubMed]
McDonnell JG, O’Donnell BD, Tuite D, Farrell T, Power C. The Regional Abdominal Field Infiltration (R.A.F.I.) technique computerised tomographic and anatomical identification of a novel approach to the transversus abdominis neuro-vascular fascial plain. Proceedings of the American Society of Anesthesiologists Annual Meeting. 2004;A-899.
Carney J, Mcdonnell JG, Ochana A, Bhinder R, Laffey JG. The transversus abdominis plane block provides effective postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy. Anesth Analg. 2008;107(6):2056-60. [crossref] [PubMed]
Baaj JM, Alsatli RA, Majaj HA, Babay ZA, Thallaj AK. Efficacy of ultrasoundguided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block for postcesarean section delivery analgesia--a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised study. Middle East J Anaesthesiol. 2010;20(6):821-26.
Børglum J, Maschmann C, Belhage B, Jensen K. Ultrasound-guided bilateral dual transversus abdominis plane block: A new four-point approach. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2011;55(6):658-63. [crossref] [PubMed]
Kumar A, Dogra N, Gupta A, Aggarwal S. Ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block versus caudal block for postoperative analgesia in children undergoing inguinal hernia surgery: A comparative study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2020;36(2):172-76. Doi: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_100_19. Epub 2020 Jun 15. PMID: 33013030; PMCID: PMC7480308. [crossref] [PubMed]
Wang P, Chen X, Chang Y, Wang Y, Cui H. Analgesic efficacy of ultrasoundguided transversus abdominis plane block after cesarean delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47(9):2954-68. Doi: 10.1111/jog.14881. Epub 2021 Jun 15. PMID: 34128297. [crossref] [PubMed]
Baytar Ç, Yilmaz C, Karasu D, Topal S. Comparison of ultrasound-guided subcostal transversus abdominis plane block and quadratus lumborum block in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective, randomised, Controlled Clinical Study. Pain Res Manag. 2019;2019:2815301. Doi: 10.1155/2019/2815301. PMID: 30863471; PMCID: PMC6377967. [crossref] [PubMed]
Neethirajan SGR, Kurada S, Parameswari A. Efficacy of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to bupivacaine in ultrasound-guided transverse abdominis plane block for laparoscopic appendicectomy: A randomised controlled study. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2020;48(5):364-70. Doi: 10.5152/TJAR.2019.67689. Epub 2019 Nov 25. PMID: 33103140; PMCID: PMC7556648. [crossref] [PubMed]
Gould D, Kelly D, Goldstone L, Gammon J. Examining the validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: Developing and using illustrated patient simulations to collect the data INFORMATION POINT: Visual Analogue Scale. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2001;10(5):697-06. [crossref] [PubMed]
Aveline C, Le Hetet H, Le roux A, Vautier P, Cognet F, Vinet E, et al. Comparison between ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane and conventional ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks for day-case open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106(3):380-86. [crossref] [PubMed]
Peng K, Ji F, Liu H, Wu S: Ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block for analgesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Med Princ Pract. 2016;25:237-46. [crossref] [PubMed]
Kahsay DT, Elsholz W, Bahta HZ. Transversus abdominis plane block after Caesarean section in an area with limited resources. Southern African Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia. 2017;23:90-95. [crossref]
Mankikar MG, Sardesai SP, Ghodki PS. Ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block for post-operative analgesia in patients undergoing caesarean section. Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60(4):253-57. [crossref] [PubMed]
Khedkar SM, Bhalerao PM, Yemul-Golhar SR, Kelkar KV. Ultrasoundguided ilioinguinal and iliohypogastric nerve block, a comparison with the conventional technique: An observational study. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia. 2015;9(3):293-97. [crossref] [PubMed]
Oak S, Narkhede H, Poduval D, Hemantkumar I. Comparison of ultrasoundguided vs blind transversus abdominis plane block in gynecological abdominal surgeries for postoperative analgesia in Tertiary Care Center: A randomised prospective single-blind study. Res Inno in Anesth. 2021;6(1):05-10. [crossref]
Niraj G, Kelkar A, Jeyapalan I, Graff-Baker P, Williams O, Darbar A, et al. Comparison of analgesic efficacy of subcostal transversus abdominis plane blocks with epidural analgesia following upper abdominal surgery. Anaesthesia. 2011;66(6):465-71. [crossref] [PubMed]
Belavy D, Cowlishaw PJ, Howes M, Phillips F. Ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block for analgesia after Caesarean delivery. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103(5):726-30. [crossref] [PubMed]
Bharti N, Kumar P, Bala I, Gupta V. The efficacy of a novel approach to transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia after colorectal surgery. Anesth Analg. 2011;112(6):1504-08. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/58292.17014

Date of Submission: Jun 07, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Jun 28, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Jul 23, 2022
Date of Publishing: Oct 01, 2022

• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

• Plagiarism X-checker: Jun 09, 2022
• Manual Googling: Jul 21, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Sep 19, 2022 (25%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)