The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Transversus Abdominis Plane Block: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Ultrasound guidance has led a surge of interest in transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block for postoperative analgesia following abdominal surgery. Despite or because of the numerous descriptive applications and techniques that have recently populated the literature, results of comparative studies for TAP block have been inconsistent. This systematic review pragmatically addresses many unanswered questions, specifically the following: what are the effects of surgical procedure, block dose, block technique, and block timing on TAP block analgesia? Eighteen intermediate- to good-quality randomized trials that included diverse surgical procedures were identified. Improved analgesia was noted in patients undergoing laparotomy for colorectal surgery, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and open and laparoscopic appendectomy. There was a trend toward superior analgesic outcomes when 15 mL of local anesthetic or more was used per side compared with lesser volumes. All 5 trials investigating TAP block performed in the triangle of Petit and 7 of 12 trials performed along the midaxillary line demonstrated some analgesic advantages. Eight of 9 trials using preincisional TAP block and 4 of 9 with postincisional block revealed better analgesic outcomes. Although the majority of trials reviewed suggest superior early pain control, we were unable to definitively identify the surgical procedures, dosing, techniques, and timing that provide optimal analgesia following TAP block. This review suggests that our understanding of the TAP block and its role in contemporary practice remains limited.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Cited by
Chaikof, E. L., Dalman, R. L., Eskandari, M. K., Jackson, B. M., Lee, W. A., Mansour, M. A., Mastracci, T. M., Mell, M., Murad, M. H., Nguyen, L. L., et al. (2018) · Journal of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2017.10.044 · Cited by 2,751
Metadata
- Authors
- Abdallah, F. W., Chan, V. W., & Brull, R.
- Venue
- Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 193-209
- ISSN
- 1098-7339 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1992023497
- Cited by
- 283
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 34.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Transversus Abdominis Plane Block: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/aap.0b013e3182429531
- The paper
- Abdallah, F. W., Chan, V. W., & Brull, R. (2012). Transversus Abdominis Plane Block: A Systematic Review. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/aap.0b013e3182429531
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.