About
The Journal "Obstetrics and Gynecology"Journal HistoryAims and ScopePolicies on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal Rights, and Informed ConsentEditorial ProcessData sharing statementAdvertising PolicyThe Process for Handling Cases Requiring Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial Expressions of ConcernEditorial BoardEditorial CounsilInformation for ProfessionalsNewsContacts
ArchiveEthical StandardsSubscription
For authors
InstructionsInformed consent policyContract offerEASE GuidelinesICJME CriteriaWAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications
Reviewing
Procedure for reviewingReviewers 2023-2024
About
The Journal "Obstetrics and Gynecology"Journal HistoryAims and ScopePolicies on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal Rights, and Informed ConsentEditorial ProcessData sharing statementAdvertising PolicyThe Process for Handling Cases Requiring Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial Expressions of ConcernEditorial BoardEditorial CounsilInformation for ProfessionalsNewsContacts
ArchiveEthical StandardsSubscription
For authors
InstructionsInformed consent policyContract offerEASE GuidelinesICJME CriteriaWAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications
Reviewing
Procedure for reviewingReviewers 2023-2024
Logout
Obstetrics and Gynegology2021№3
On the prospects of using...

On the prospects of using myofascial blocks in obstetric and gynecological practice

DOI
https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2021.3.50-57

Syutkina I.P., Khabarov D.V., Smagin A.A., Ineshina A.D., Kochetkova M.V.

1) Research Institute of Clinical and Experimental Lymphology – Branch of the Federal Research Center, Institute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russia; 2) Novosibirsk State University, Zelman Institute of Medicine and Psychology, Novosibirsk, Russia
The increase in the number of minimally invasive surgical interventions and the introduction of the concept of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery necessitate a search for alternative safe anesthesia procedures. Active studies have recently been underway to use new regional anesthesia procedures based on myofascial blocks that can become an alternative to epidural blockade. These blocks include a transversus abdominal plane (TAP) block, a quadratus lumborum muscle block (QLB), an erector spinae plane (ESP) block, retrolaminar block (RLB), which are performed using ultrasonic navigation. The benefit of using these blocks is the ease of their implementation, a low risk of complications, the impact on the initial stages of the onset of pain syndrome (transduction and transmission); in the absence of a motor block; the possibility of affecting the visceral component of pain, the reduction of sympathetic influences, which provides a stress-limiting effect and promotes early recovery after surgery. The review considers the use of myofascial blocks, with an emphasis on the blocks of the posterior abdominal wall, in the perioperative period during obstetric and gynecological surgical interventions.
Conclusion. The above determines the need for a closer study of the anatomical points of application, the mechanisms of action, as well as for evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of these procedures.

Keywords

myofascial blocks
TAP block
QLB
ESP block
RLB
regional anesthesia
Full text (in Russian)

References

  1. Куликов А.В., Шифман Е.М., ред. Анестезия, интенсивная терапия и реанимация в акушерстве и гинекологии. Клинические рекомендации. Протоколы лечения. 2-е изд. М.: Медицина; 2017. 688 с. [Kulikov A.V., Shifman E.M., ed. Anesthesia, intensive care and resuscitation in obstetrics and gynecology. Clinical guidelines. Protocols of treatment. 2nd ed. M.: Medicine; 2017. 688 p. (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.18821/9785225100384.
  2. Махарин О.А., Заварзин П.Ж., Женило В.М., Скобло М.Л. QL- или ТАР: Что предпочесть после кесарева сечения? Вестник акушерской анестезиологии. 2020; 2: 5-14. [Makharin O.A., Zavarzin P.Zh., Zhenilo V.M., Skoblo M.L. QL- or TAP: What to prefer after cesarean section? Bulletin of obstetric anesthesiology. 2020; 2: 5-14. (in Russian)].
  3. Børglum J., Gogenur I., Bendtsen T.F. Abdominal wall blocks in adults. Curr. Opin. Anaesthesiol. 2016; 29(5): 638-43. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000378.
  4. Soliz J.M., Lipski I., Hancher-Hodges S., Speer B.B., Popat K. Subcostal transverse abdominis plane block for acute pain management: a review. Anesth. Pain Med. 2017; 7(5): e12923. https://dx.doi.org/10.5812/aapm.12923.
  5. Baeriswyl M., Kirkham K.R., Kern C., Albrecht E. The analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block in adult patients: a meta-analysis. Anesth. Analg. 2015; 121(6): 1640-54. https://dx.doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000000967.
  6. Fusco P., Scimia P., Paladini G., Fiorenzi M., Petrucci E., Pozone T. et al. Transversus abdominis plane block for analgesia after Cesarean delivery. A systematic review. Minerva Anestesiol. 2015; 81(2): 195-204.
  7. Chang H., Rimel B.J., Li A.J., Cass I., Karlan B.Y., Walsh C. Ultrasound guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block utilization in multimodal pain management after open gynecologic surgery. Gynecol. Oncol. Rep. 2018; 26: 75-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2018.10.007.
  8. Blanco R. Tap block under ultrasound guidance: the description of a “no pops” technique. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2007; 32(5): 130. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rapm.2007.06.268.
  9. Blanco R., McDonnell J.G. Optimal point of injection: the quadratus lumborum type I and II blocks. Available at: http://www.respond2articles.com/ANA/forums/post/1550.aspx Accessed 10 January 2014.
  10. Blanco R., Ansari T., Girgis E. Quadratus lumborum block for postoperative pain after caesarean section: a randomised controlled trial. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 2015; 32(11): 812-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000000299.
  11. Akerman M., Pejcic N., Veličković I. Review of the quadratus lumborum block and ERAS. Front. Med. (Lausanne). 2018; 5: 44. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2018.00044.
  12. Ishio J., Komasawa N., Kido H., Minami T. Evaluation of ultrasound-guided posterior quadratus lumborum block for postoperative analgesia after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. J. Clin. Anesth. 2017; 41: 1-4. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2017.05.015.
  13. Ueshima H., Otake H., Lin J.A. Ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum block: an updated review of anatomy and techniques. Biomed. Res. Int. 2017; 2017: 2752876. https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/2752876.
  14. Elsharkawy H., El-Boghdadly K., Barrington M. Quadratus lumborum block: anatomical concepts, mechanisms, and techniques. Anesthesiology. 2019; 130(2): 322-35. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000002524.
  15. Børglum J., Moriggl B., Jensen K., Lønnqvist P.A., Christensen A.F., Sauter A. et al. Ultrasound-guided transmuscular quadratus lumborum blockade. Br. J. Anaesth. 2013; 111(eLetters Suppl.). https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/el_9919.
  16. Lu Y., Zhang J., Xu X., Chen W., Zhang S., Zheng H. et al. Sensory assessment and block duration of transmuscular quadratus lumborum block at L2 versus L4 in volunteers: a randomized controlled trial. Minerva Anestesiol. 2019; 85(12): 1273‐80. https://dx.doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.19.13656-5.
  17. Elsharkawy H. Quadratus lumborum block with paramedian sagittal oblique (subcostal) approach. Anaesthesia. 2016; 71(2): 241-2. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/anae.13371.
  18. Murouchi T., Iwasaki S., Yamakage M. Quadratus lumborum block: analgesic effects and chronological ropivacaine concentrations after laparoscopic surgery. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2016; 41(2): 146-50. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AAP.0000000000000349.
  19. Carney J., Finnerty O., Rauf J., Bergin D., Laffey J.G., Mc Donnell J.G.L. Studies on the spread of local anaesthetic solution in transversus abdominis plane blocks. Anaesthesia. 2011; 66(11): 1023-30. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06855.x.
  20. Dam M., Moriggl B., Hansen C.K., Hoermann R., Bendtsen T.F., Børglum J. The pathway of injectate spread with the transmuscular quadratus lumborum block: a cadaver study. Anesth. Analg. 2017; 125(1): 303-12. https://dx.doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000001922.
  21. Adhikary S.D., El-Boghdadly K., Nasralah Z., Sarwani N., Nixon A.M., Chin K.J. A radiologic and anatomic assessment of injectate spread following transmuscular quadratus lumborum block in cadavers. Anaesthesia. 2017; 72(1): 73-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/anae.13647.
  22. Kumar A., Sadeghi N., Wahal C., Gadsden J., Grant S.A. Quadratus lumborum spares paravertebral space in fresh cadaver injection. Anesth. Analg. 2017; 125(2): 708-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002245.
  23. Blanco R., Ansari T., Riad W., Shetty N. Quadratus lumborum block versus transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative pain after Cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2016; 41(6): 757-62. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AAP.0000000000000495.
  24. Salama E.R. Ultrasound-guided bilateral quadratus lumborum block vs. intrathecal morphine for postoperative analgesia after cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 2020; 73(2): 121-8. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.4097/kja.d.18.00269.
  25. Krohg A., Ullensvang K., Rosseland L.A., Langesæter E., Sauter A.R. The analgesic effect of ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum block after Cesarean delivery: a randomized clinical trial. Anesth. Analg. 2018; 126(2): 559-65. https://dx.doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002648.
  26. Mieszkowski M.M., Mayzner-Zawadzka E., Tuyakov B., Mieszkowska M., Żukowski M., Waśniewski T. et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the quadratus lumborum block type I using ropivacaine in postoperative analgesia after a cesarean section - a controlled clinical study. Ginekol. Pol. 2018; 89(2): 89-96. https://dx.doi.org/10.5603/GP.a2018.0015.
  27. Hansen C.K., Dam M., Steingrimsdottir G.E., Laier G.H., Lebech M., Poulsen T.D. et al. Ultrasound-guided transmuscular quadratus lumborum block for elective cesarean section significantly reduces postoperative opioid consumption and prolongs time to first opioid request: a double-blind randomized trial. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2019; rapm-2019-100540. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2019-100540.
  28. Kang W., Lu D., Yang X., Zhou Z., Chen X., Chen K. et al. Postoperative analgesic effects of various quadratus lumborum block approaches following cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. J. Pain Res. 2019; 12: 2305-12. https://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S202772.
  29. Xu M., Tang Y., Wang J., Yang J. Quadratus lumborum block for postoperative analgesia after cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Obstet. Anesth. 2020; 42: 87-98. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijoa.2020.02.005.
  30. Jin Z., Liu J., Li R., Gan T.J., He Y., Lin J. Single injection quadratus lumborum block for postoperative analgesia in adult surgical population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Anesth. 2020; 62: 109715. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.109715.
  31. Fujimoto H., Irie T., Mihara T., Mizuno Y., Nomura T., Goto T. Effect of posterior quadratus lumborum blockade on the quality of recovery after major gynaecological laparoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Anaesth. Intensive Care. 2019; 47(2): 146-51. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0310057X19838765.
  32. Yousef N.K. Quadratus lumborum block versus transversus abdominis plane block in patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy: a randomized prospective controlled trial. Anesth. Essays Res. 2018; 12(3): 742-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/aer.AER_108_18.
  33. Wang Y., Wang X., Zhang K. Effects of transversus abdominis plane block versus quadratus lumborum block on postoperative analgesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020; 20(1): 128. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01047-1.
  34. Liu X., Song T., Chen X., Zhang J., Shan C., Chang L. et al. Quadratus lumborum block versus transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing abdominal surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020; 20(1): 53. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-00967-2.
  35. Kim S.H., Kim H.J., Kim N., Lee B., Song J., Choi Y.S. Effectiveness of quadratus lumborum block for postoperative pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Minerva Anestesiol. 2020; 86(5): 554-64. https://dx.doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.20.13975-0.
  36. Ben-David B., Kaligozhin Z., Viderman D. Quadratus lumborum block in management of severe pain after uterine artery embolization. Eur. J. Pain. 2018; 22(6): 1032-4. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1171.
  37. Forero M., Adhikary S.D., Lopez H., Tsui C., Chin K.J. The erector spinae plane block: a novel analgesic technique in thoracic neuropathic pain. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2016; 41(5): 621-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AAP.0000000000000451.
  38. Forero M., Roqués V., Trujillo-Uribe N.J. Erector spinae plane block (ESP Block). In: Peng P., Finlayson R., Lee S., Bhatia A., eds. Ultrasound for interventional pain management. An illustrated procedural guide. Springer; 2020: 131-48. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18371-4.
  39. Kendall M.C., Alves L., Traill L.L., De Oliveira G.S. The effect of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block on postsurgical pain: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020; 20(1): 99. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01016-8.
  40. Urits I., Charipova K., Gress K., Laughlin P., Orhurhu V., Kaye A.D. et al. Expanding role of the erector spinae plane block for postoperative and chronic pain management. Curr. Pain Headache Rep. 2019; 23(10): 71. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11916-019-0812-y.
  41. Kot P., Rodriguez P., Granell M., Cano B., Rovira L., Morales J. et al. The erector spinae plane block: a narrative review. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 2019; 72(3): 209-20. https://dx.doi.org/10.4097/kja.d.19.00012.
  42. De Cassai A., Bonvicini D., Correale C., Sandei L., Tulgar S., Tonetti T. Erector spinae plane block: a systematic qualitative review. Minerva Anestesiol. 2019; 85(3): 308-19. https://dx.doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.18.13341-4.
  43. De Cassai A., Andreatta G., Bonvicini D., Boscolo A., Munari M., Navalesi P. Injectate spread in ESP block: a review of anatomical investigations. J. Clin. Anesth. 2020; 61: 109669. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2019.109669A.
  44. Ueshima H., Hiroshi O. Spread of local anesthetic solution in the erector spinae plane block. J. Clin. Anesth. 2018; 45: 23. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2017.12.007.
  45. Pfeiffer G., Oppitz N., Schöne S., Richter-Heine I., Höhne M., Koltermann C. Analgesia of the axilla using a paravertebral catheter in the lamina technique. Anaesthesist. 2006; 55(4): 423-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00101-005-0969-0.
  46. Onishi E., Toda N., Kameyama Y., Yamauchi M. Comparison of clinical efficacy and anatomical investigation between retrolaminar block and erector spinae plane block. Biomed. Res. Int. 2019; 2019: 2578396. https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/2578396.
  47. Adhikary S.D., Bernard S., Lopez H., Chin K.J. Erector spinae plane block versus retrolaminar block: a magnetic resonance imaging and anatomical study. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2018; 43(7): 756-62. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AAP.0000000000000798.
  48. Altinpulluk E.Y., Ozdilek A., Colakoglu N., Beyoglu C.A., Ertas A., Uzel M. et al. Bilateral postoperative ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block in open abdominal hysterectomy: a case series and cadaveric investigation. Rom. J. Anaesth. Intensive Care. 2019; 26(1): 83-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/rjaic-2019-0013.
  49. Canturk M., Canturk F.K. Ultrasound-guided bilateral lumbar erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia after myomectomy with Pfannenstiel incision. J. Clin. Anesth. 2020; 59: 40-1. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2019.06.002.
  50. Santonastaso D.P., De Chiara A., Addis A., Mastronardi C., Pini R., Agnoletti V. Ultrasound guided erector spinae plane block for post-operative pain control after caesarean section. J. Clin. Anesth. 2019; 58: 45-6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016j.jclinane.2019.05.009.

Received 29.07.2020

Accepted 16.12.2020

About the Authors

Irina P. Siutkina, MD, Researcher, Surgical Lymphology and Lymphodetoxication Laboratory, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Research Institute of Clinical and Experimental Lymрhology – Branch of the Institute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences. E-mail: komarok777@mail.ru.
ORCID: 0000-0002-3941-4521. 2, Timakova str., Novosibirsk, 630117, Russia.
Dmitriy V. Khabarov, MD, PhD, Senior Researcher of Surgical Lymphology and Lymphodetoxication Laboratory, Head of Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Research Institute of Clinical and Experimental Lymрhology – Branch of the Institute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences.
E-mail: hdv@ngs.ru. ORCID: 0000-0001-7622-8384. 2, Timakova str., Novosibirsk, 630117, Russia.
Alexander A. Smagin, MD, PhD, Senior Researcher of Surgical Lymphology and Lymphodetoxication Laboratory, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Research Institute of Clinical and Experimental Lymрhology – Branch of the Institute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences. E-mail: asa57@ngs.ru. ORCID: 0000-0001-8319-0038. 2, Timakova str., Novosibirsk, 630117, Russia.
Alisa D. Inyoshina, student, 5 course, Novosibirsk State University, V. Zelman Institute for Medicine and Psychoogy. E-mail: a.ineshina@g.nsu.ru.
ORCID: 0000-0001-7794-9095. 1, Pirogova str., Novosibirsk, Russia, 630090.
Marya V. Kochetkova, MD, Researcher, Surgical Lymphology and Lymphodetoxication Laboratory, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Research Institute of Clinical and Experimental Lymрhology – Branch of the Institute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences. E-mail: masha0112@mail.ru. ORCID: 0000-0002-8752-4151. 2, Timakova str., Novosibirsk, 630117, Russia.

For citation: Syutkina I.P., Khabarov D.V., Smagin A.A., Ineshina A.D., Kochetkova M.V. On the prospects of using myofascial blocks in obstetric and gynecological practice.
Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya/Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2021; 3: 50-57 (in Russian)
https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2021.3.50-57
By continuing to use our site, you consent to the processing of cookies that ensure the proper functioning of the site.