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

Users Online : 51424

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 : UC17 - UC21 Full Version

Postoperative Analgesic Efficacy of Transverse Abdominis Plane Block versus Port Site Local Infiltration in Laparoscopic Gynaecological Surgeries- A Randomised Clinical Trial

Published: October 1, 2022 | DOI:
MS Anusha, K Udaya Bhaskar, Jaganath, T Dharani Priya, Mohan Koyee

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, PES Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, PES Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 3. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, PES Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 4. Postgraduate Student, Department of Anaesthesiology, PES Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 5. Professor and Head, Department of Anaesthesiology, PES Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. MS Anusha,
Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, PES Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Kuppam-517425, Andhra Pradesh, India.


Introduction: Pain relief postoperatively has advantages related to better patient satisfaction in terms of early ambulation and discharge and also better cardiovascular stability, decreased infections, neurological complications, prevention of thromboembolic phenomenon, and chronic pain syndrome. Non Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids are the most commonly used drugs in pain management. Transverse Abdominis Plane (TAP) block is a regional analgesic technique, which provides analgesia of the anterolateral abdominal wall and hence can be used to provide analgesia for caesarean section, hernia repairs, hysterectomies, cholecystectomy.

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of bilateral TAP block versus port sites local anaesthetic infiltration to relieve postoperative pain in laparoscopic gynaecological surgeries.

Materials and Methods: This single-blinded randomised clinical study conducted at PES Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh, India, from January 2020 to June 2021. The clinical trial was conducted on 80 patients belonging to American Society of Anaesthesiologist (ASA) I and II posted for elective laparoscopic gynaecological surgeries. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups with 40 patients in each group. Group T (TAP block) received 0.6 mL/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine for bilateral ultrasound guided TAP block and group O (port sites local infiltration) received 0.6 mL/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine for port sites infiltration. At the end of surgery, patients received either TAP block or port site infiltration as per the group allocated and then extubated. Postoperative pain intensity using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score were recorded at the time of shifting as 0 hr and then every 2 hrs, 4 hrs, 6 hrs, 8 hrs, 12 hrs and 24 hrs. The mean time for first rescue analgesia and total number of rescue analgesic given in first 24 hrs were noted. Haemodynamic parameters and side-effects with study drug were noted. For inferential statistics, numerical data was analysed by Chi-square test and for categorical data student’s t-test was used. A p-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results: Demographic parameters in both groups were comparable. There was no significant difference in VAS score upto 4 hours in between two groups. But mean VAS score was significantly low in group T when compared to group O at 6 hours (2.2±0.4 vs 2.7±0.5), 8 hours (2.7±0.4 vs 3.2±0.7) and 12 hours (3.3±0.5 vs 3.6±0.5). The time to receive rescue analgesic was longer in TAP block group (13.7±1.5 vs 10.6±1.64 hrs) when compared to port sites local infiltration group. And total number of rescue analgesia received was low in TAP block group (70% recieved single dose) when compared to port sites local infiltration group (80% received two doses).

Conclusion: The TAP block and port sites infiltration in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynaecological surgeries are used for effective postoperative analgesia as part of multimodal analgesia, which reduces the use of other analgesics like NSAIDS and opioids. However, TAP block provides superior and prolonged pain relief when compared to port sites local infiltration.


Analgesia, Bupivacaine, Opioids, Visual analogue scale

Laparoscopic gynaecological surgeries are most commonly performed surgeries in tertiary care hospitals. Postoperative pain is the most common symptom following any surgery. Perioperative pain relief is associated with advantages like cardiovascular stability, decreased sympathetic activity, decreased rate of infections, decreased neurological complications, prevent chronic pain syndromes, and also better patient satisfaction in terms of faster recovery and early mobilisation, and shorter duration of hospitalisation (1),(2). Hence, postoperative pain management plays a key role in perioperative anaesthesia care.

Laparoscopic surgeries are associated with less bleeding, early mobilisation, early normal daily activity recovery, good cosmetic outcome, less postoperative pain, low morbidity and mortality, hence attained a major role in gynaecological surgeries (3),(4).

The pain after abdominal surgeries is multifactorial, includes pain from surgical site incision, visceral pain from peritoneum and from manipulation of abdominal structures but major contribution is from the anterior abdominal wall (5). Hence, for postoperative pain management abdominal wall local anaesthetic infiltration is an effective pain relief technique. This technique, along with Non Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids form part of multimodal analgesic techniques. Hence, this study was undertaken to compare postoperative analgesic efficacy of transverse abdominis plane block versus port sites local infiltration in laparoscopic gynaecological surgeries.

Various studies comparing the efficacy of Transverse Abdominis Plane (TAP) block versus local anaesthetic infiltration done in open surgeries using opioids as rescue analgesic have shown that TAP block provides better pain relief compared to local anaesthetic infiltration and decreased the consumption of rescue analgesic (6),(7),(8),(9),(10),(11). This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of bilateral TAP block versus port sites infiltration for pain relief in laparoscopic gynaecological surgeries (minimally invasive surgery) and NSAIDs used as rescue analgesics.

Material and Methods

This single-blinded randomised clinical study conducted at PES Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh, India, from January 2020 to June 2021. The ethical clearance from Institutional Hospital Ethical Committee approval (PESIMSR/IHEC/91/2019) and a written informed consent from patients were obtained. Patients were allocated either to TAP block group (group T) or port-sites infiltration group (group O), as per computer-based random allocation.

Sample size calculation: Considering the time for first analgesia request for TAP block versus local infiltration with a mean±SD of 6.11±6.2 and 2.63±1.83, and using the formula


The sample size was calculated to be 27 per group, with an effective size of 1.0, power of the study as 90, and alpha error of 0.05 (7). For convenience and to increase the power of the study the sample size for each group was increased to 40. Total of 80 patients were enrolled in the study with 40 in each group; there were no dropouts from the study (Table/Fig 1).

Patients were randomly allocated as per computer based random allocation:

• Group T (TAP block) (n=40): Patients received 0.6 mL/kg of 0.25 % bupivacaine for bilateral ultrasound guided TAP block.
• Group O (port sites local infiltration) (n=40): Patients received 0.6 mL/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine for port sites infiltration.

Inclusion criteria: American Society of Anaesthesiologist (ASA) physical status I and II, aged between 20-60 years posted for elective gynaecological surgeries were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients allergic to local anaesthetic drugs, those using medications for chronic pain, and patients with renal and hepatic diseases, conversion to open surgery intraoperatively were excluded from the study.

Study Procedure

After thorough preanaesthetic evaluation all patients were given anxiolytic drug alprazolam 0.5 mg orally on previous day at bed time. In preoperative room technique of anaesthesia procedure and the study method were explained to patient own words and written informed consent taken as per institutional protocol. In the operation theatre intravenous (i.v.) accesses secured with 18G cannula, i.v. fluids were started according to body weight. Baseline Heart Rate (HR), Non Invasive Blood Pressure (NIBP), Oxygen Saturation (SpO2), Electrocardiograph (ECG) were recorded. All patients received a standardised general anaesthesia protocol with propofol 2 mg/kg, fentanyl 2 mcg/kg, vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg (i.v.) and anaesthesia was maintained with isoflurane and 40% oxygen and nitrous oxide. Standard monitoring done throughout the operation. Intraoperative analgesia provided by i.v. paracetamol 15 mg/kg.

At the end of procedure, in group T anaesthesiologist administered the TAP block. The patient in supine or slightly lateral position, ultrasound probe was placed transversely in the horizontal plane along the lateral abdominal wall at the mid-axillary line, midway between the iliac crest and lower costal margin. At this level, the three abdominal muscles were easily distinguished and an optimal ultrasound view obtained. A 23 G Quinke’s needle was inserted approximately 2-3 cm from the transducer in an anteroposterior direction and advanced in an in-plane approach into the plane between internal oblique muscle and transverse abdominis muscle (12),(13). Small amount of local anaesthetic or normal saline was injected to confirm correct needle placement and then the remaining volume of local anaesthetic was injected incrementally. A total volume of 0.6 mL/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine in two divided doses of 0.3 mL/kg was administered on either side. In group O at the end of procedure before port sites closure all the port sites were infiltrated with a total volume of 0.6 mL/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine. In the postoperative period, an observer blinded to the study assessed for postoperative analgesia using VAS scores, haemodynamic parameters, time for first recue analgesia, total doses of rescue analgesia required and side effects at 0 hr as baseline (time at shifting patient to postoperative ward) then at 2 hrs, 4 hrs, 6 hrs, 8 hrs, 12 hrs and 24 hrs.

• The primary observation was to compare pain according to Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Score.
• The secondary observations were, the time to reach VAS score ≥4, when rescue analgesia, Inj. diclofenac 75 mg i.v. was given, and total analgesic doses given in first 24 hr postoperatively.
• Adverse effects of local anaesthetic like hypotension, bradycardia, nausea and vomiting and pruritus were noted.

Statistical Analysis

The observed data were entered into MS Excel 2007 version and analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0. For descriptive analysis, categorical data were analysed using percentages and the continuous data were analysed using mean and standard deviation. For inferential statistics, numerical data was analysed by Chi-square test, and for categorical data student's t-test was used. A p-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.


Demographic data of the two groups are shown in (Table/Fig 2), there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups.

There was no statistical significant difference between associations of type of surgery between the two groups as both groups underwent similar type of surgeries (Table/Fig 3).

The VAS scores were comparable between the two groups until 4 hours postoperatively, but between 6-12 hours, the TAP block group had significantly lower VAS score compared to port-sites infiltration group suggesting better pain relief with TAP block (Table/Fig 4). A total of 80% cases group O received two doses of rescue analgesia compared to only 12% in group T, indicating a prolonged pain free interval with group T (Table/Fig 5).

Mean time for first rescue analgesia was significantly longer in TAP block group and the mean number of rescue analgesic doses required was also significantly lesser in TAP block group (Table/Fig 6).

Mean values of the heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure at different time intervals postoperatively are as shown in (Table/Fig 7),(Table/Fig 8),(Table/Fig 9), respectively. The values between the two groups were comparable without any statistical significant difference over a period of 24 hours. There were no side-effects like hypotension, bradycardia, pruritus, drowsiness in either of the groups.


The TAP block is a regional analgesic technique, which blocks thoracolumbar nerves originating from T6-L1 spinal roots and provide analgesia to anterolateral abdominal wall by local anaesthetic drug infiltration in the plane between the transverse abdominalis muscle and internal oblique muscle. It was first described by Rafi AN in 2001 as landmark based approach through the triangle of Petit (14). It was further made safer and easier by using ultrasound guided technique (10),(11). There is increasing evidence to show that TAP block is effective pain relieving technique for surgeries like caesarean section, hysterectomy, cholecystectomy, colectomy, hernia repairs. Various approaches for TAP block include subcostal technique, lateral technique, posterior technique, oblique subcostal technique with each technique providing analgesia over different abdominal areas (15).

The present study compared the postoperative analgesic efficacy of TAP block and port sites local infiltration using 0.25% bupivacaine in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynaecological surgeries with inj. diclofenac 75 mg i.v. as rescue analgesic and found that TAP block was superior to port sites infiltration in terms VAS score, time for first rescue analgesic requirement and total dose of rescue analgesia required over 24 hours postoperatively.

In the present study, TAP block with 0.25% bupivacaine provided longer duration of analgesia with better VAS scores measured at different time intervals compared to port sites local infiltration with 0.25% bupivacaine. This finding was comparable with study by Habtenariam M et al., who found that TAP block had significantly lesser pain scores compared to wound infiltration in caesarean section patients up to 18 hours post operatively (8). Also, comparable with studies by Abd El-Hamid AM and Afifi EE, who found that patients with TAP block better pain scores at rest for 12 hours and on cough for 6 hours postoperatively compared to wound infiltration (10). Pratheeba N et al., also showed TAP group had better lower VAS scores compared to wound infiltration with ropivacaine (9). Mishra M et al., showed that VAS scores were comparable at 1 hr, 3 hrs, and 6 hrs postoperatively whereas, at 12 hours and at 24 hours the TAP block group had statistically significant lower pain scores compared to wound infiltration group (11).

The secondary observation of the present study, time to reach VAS >4, that is the time at which rescue analgesia was given, was significantly longer in group T when compared to group O. Wayu B et al., showed that the need for first analgesic was significantly longer in TAP block group compared to LAI group (673 min vs 227 min) (16). Bava EP et al., showed that there was no difference in 24 hour Inj Morphine requirement between TAP block group and local infiltration group (17). Probable reason being the authors had performed the TAP block using land mark based approach, the transverse abdominal plane was identified using the pop off sign, but in the present study, transverse abdominis plane was identified using ultrasound guide approach, hence, a more precise deposition of the local anaesthetic drug and effective and prolonged analgesia.

Comparison of rescue analgesic administered over 24 hr: The present study showed demand for rescue analgesic consumption was significantly less with transverse abdominal plane block when compared to local portsite infiltration over 24 hr period. This was comparable to study by Wayu B et al., who showed that the amount of Inj Tramadol required was significantly lower in TAP block group compared to LAI group (16). Study done by Abd El- Hamid AM and Afifi EE, also showed significantly lower number of subjects in TAP block group required supplemental analgesia (10). Study done by Habtemariam M et al., found significantly less tramadol less consumption in TAP block group compared to local infiltration group with median (IQR) of 100 mg (100-150) VS 150 mg (150-200) (8). Pratheeba N et al., found that the total analgesic doses required was lower in TAP block group compared to wound infiltration group (9). Also studies done by Scharine JD, Belavy D et al., and El Sharkwy et al., showed that TAP block proved effective prolonged postoperative analgesia compared to other methods (18),(19),(20).

Comparison of haemodynamics and side-effects: There was no significant changes in haemodynamic parameters over 24 hours and the mean haemodynamic parameters (heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, SpO2, respiratory rate) at 0, 2, 4 hrs, 6 hrs, 8 hrs, 12 hrs, 24 hrs in both groups were comparable. These findings were comparable with study by Abd El-Hamid AM and Afifi EE, and Wayu B et al., (10),(16). Habtemariam M et al., in their study also found no significant differences between the two groups (8). There were no side effects like hypotension, bradycardia, pruritus, drowsiness in both groups. This was comparable to studies by Wayu B et al., (16).

To summarise, VAS scores compared between two groups, there was no significant difference upto 4 hours, but there was significantly low VAS score at 6, 8, 12 hours in TAP block group when compared to port sites local infiltration group, the time to first rescue analgesic was longer in TAP block when compared to port sites local infiltration group. And total dose rescue analgesic consumption was less in TAP block when compared to port sites local infiltration group.


All the patients belonged to physical status ASA grade I and II with no severe underlying disease; therefore, the results of the present study should not be generalised. All the VAS measurements were not carried out by a single observer to eliminate any interobserver variability. The surgeries were conducted by different surgeons, thus causing differences in tissue handling and port sites local anaesthetic infiltration and thus interference with intensity of pain.


The quality of analgesia in this present study was evidenced by a reduction in pain scores and decreased rescue analgesic demand. TAP block and local infiltration are easy to perform, provide effective analgesia, with stable haemodynamic without any significant adverse effects. However, this study showed TAP block provided superior and prolonged pain relief when compared port sites infiltration.


Yu N, Long X, Lujan-Hernandez JR, Succar J, Xin X, Wang X. Transversus abdominis-plane block versus local anesthetic wound infiltration in lower abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Anesthesiology. 2014;14(1):121. [crossref] [PubMed]
Ramsay MA. Acute postoperative pain management. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2000;13(3):244-47. [crossref] [PubMed]
Wesley JH. Complications of hysterectomy. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1997;40(4):928-38. [crossref] [PubMed]
Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr E, Garry R, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2009;(3):CD003677. [crossref]
Choi JB, Kang K, Song MK, Seok S, Kim YH, Kim JE. Pain characteristics after total laparoscopic hysterectomy. International Journal of Medical Sciences. 2016;13(8):562-68. [crossref] [PubMed]
Verma N, Krishnendu S, Chandak AV, Singam A, Chandak VC, Chakole V. Effectiveness of transverse abdominis plane block as a method of regional anaesthesia in unilateral inguinal hernia repair. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2020;9(42):3097-102. [crossref]
Aydogmus M, Sinikoglu S, Naki M, Ocak N, Sanli N, Alagol A. Comparison of analgesic efficiency between wound site infiltration and ultra-sound-guided transversus abdominis plane block after cesarean delivery under spinal anaesthesia. Hippokratia. 2014;18(1):28-31.
Habtemariam M, Muluget H, Solomon F, Hailu S, Ayalew N, Aweke Z. Effect of transverses abdominis block and subcutaneous wound infiltration on post-operative pain analgesia after cesarean section at Hawassa University, southern Ethiopia: A prospective cohort study. Int J Surg Open. 2020;26:108-113. [crossref]
Pratheeba N, Remadevi R, Raajesh IJ, Bhavani V, Tripathy DK, Bhat RR. Comparison of postoperative analgesic efficacy of wound site infiltration and ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block with 0.5% ropivacaine in lower abdominal surgeries under spinal anesthesia. Anesth Essays Res. 2018;12(1):80-84. [crossref] [PubMed]
Abd El-Hamid AM, Afifi EE. Transversus abdominis plane block versus local anesthetic wound infiltration in patients undergoing open inguinal hernia repair surgery. Ain-Shams Journal of Anaesthesiology. 2016;9(2):280. [crossref]
Mishra M, Mishra SP, Singh SP. Transversus abdominis plane block versus wound infiltration of local anesthesia for Post Operative Analgesia. J Med Sci Clin Res. 2016;04(03);9916-22. [crossref]
Walter EJ, Smith P, Albertyn R, Uncles D.R. Ultrasound imaging for transversus abdominis blocks. Anaesthesia. 2008;63(2):211. [crossref] [PubMed]
Hebbard P. Subcostal transversus abdominis plane block under ultrasound guidance. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2008;106(2):674-75. [crossref] [PubMed]
Rafi AN. Abdominal Field Block: A new approach via the lumbar triangle. Anaesthesia. 2001;56(10):1024-26. [crossref] [PubMed]
Tsai HC, Yoshida T, Chuang TY, Yang SF, Chang CC, Yao HY, et al. Transversus abdominis plane block: An updated review of anatomy and techniques. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:8284363. [crossref] [PubMed]
Wayu B, Germa B, Shitemaw T, Dendir G. A comparative study between transversus Abdominis Plane Block and wound site local anesthesia infiltration for effective post-operative pain control for lower abdominal surgery: A prospective cohort study, Ethiopia. J Anesthesia Clin Res. 2018;09(09). [crossref]
Bava EP, Ramachandran R, Rewari V, Chandralekha, Bansal VK, Trikha A. Analgesic efficacy of ultrasound guided transversus abdominis plane block versus local anesthetic infiltration in adult patients undergoing single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized controlled trial. Anesthesia: Essays and Researches. 2016;10(3):561. [crossref] [PubMed]
Scharine JD. Bilateral transversus abdominis plane nerve blocks for analgesia following cesarean delivery: Report of 2 cases. AANA J. 2009;77:98-102.
Belavy D, Cowlishaw PJ, Howes M, Phillips F. Ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block for analgesia after caesarean delivery. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2009;103(5):726-30. [crossref] [PubMed]
El sharkwy I.A, Noureldin EH, Mohamed EA, Mohamed AA. Laparoscopic-guided transversus abdominis plane block versus trocar site local anesthetic infiltration in gynecologic laparoscopy. Gynecological Surgery. 2018;15(1):1047-53. [crossref]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/59195.17016

Date of Submission: Jul 30, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Aug 22, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Sep 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. No

• Plagiarism X-checker: Aug 06, 2022
• Manual Googling: Sep 19, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Sep 21, 2022 (20%)

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)