Analgesic effectiveness of quadratus lumborum block for patients after abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.22940/v1

Abstract

Background: A series of studies have reported that quadratus lumborum block (QLB) can have a great postoperative analgesia for lower abdominal surgery. However, a meta-analysis of the analgesic effect of QLB in patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery has not been published.

Methods： We searched the databases of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (updated to October 15, 2019). We cumulative opioid consumption at 6, 12, 24 and 48h after surgery; pain score (rest and dynamic) at 6, 12, 24 and 48h after surgery; occurrence of common opioid-related complications at 24h after surgery . Opioid consumption as the main outcome.

Results：Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 751 patients were analysed. Compared with control group, QLB group can effectively reduce 24 and 48h cumulative opioid consumption 10.1mg (95%CI: -13,-7.2; p<0.00001) and 16.22mg (95%CI: -19.39,13.03; p<0.00001) in patients with cesarean section, but can reduce effectively cumulative opioid consumption in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery at 6, 12 and 24h. Posterior QLB group and transmuscular QLB group reduced 24h cumulative opioid consumption 4.03mg ( 95%CI: -7.89, -0.19; p=0.04) and 12.44mg ( 95%CI: -20.2, -4.68; p=0.002), respectively. QLB group reduced rest visual analogue scale (VAS) score at 12 , 24 and 48 h ,however, the effective reduction of rest VAS score in patients undergoing cesarean section only occurs at 24h after surgery.

Conclusion：QLB seems to provide better analgesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery than patients undergoing cesarean section. Transmuscular QLB appears to have reduced postoperative opioid consumption compared to posterior QLB. More future RCTs are needed to support our conclusions.

Background

Postoperative acute pain occurs in more than 80% of operation patients, and approximately 75% of operation patients experience the moderate or higher pain[1, 2]. Evidence shows that less than half of operation patients claim that postoperative pain is effectively relieved. Inadequate negative control of pain affects the quality of life, function and function recovery, risk of postoperative complications, and risk of long-term postoperative pain [3]. Proper postoperative analgesia can reduce pain, encourage patients to cough and get out of bed, reduce the occurrence of lower extremity thrombosis and pulmonary complications and improve postoperative satisfaction [4-6]. Postoperative analgesia using traditional opioids often causes constipation, nausea, vomiting and other adverse reactions, thus limiting its clinical application. Regional analgesia techniques combined with intravenous self-controlled analgesia can effectively reduce the dosage and adverse effects of opioids, which is conducive to rapid recovery after surgery [4].

The quadratus lumborum block (QLB) was first proposed by Blanco [7] in 2007, which is suitable for perioperative analgesia in abdominal, hip and lower extremity surgery. Studies[8, 9] have shown that compared with the transver susabdominisplane block (TAPB), QLB can block both body and visceral pain, with better analgesic effect and longer duration. A number of studies [8-22] have also reported that the QLB can be an effective postoperative analgesia both for laparoscopic surgery[14, 23-28] and cesarean section[10, 16, 18, 29-31], and the choices about the different approaches of QLB were also diverse. However, a meta-analysis of the QLB has not been published. The purpose of this article is to report on the improvement in the analgesic effect of the QLB compared to placebo and control groups in patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery. Subgroup analyses were intended to be used to find differences in the approach of different QLB and between patients with different surgical procedures. Provide guidance for anesthesiologists to choose postoperative analgesia.

Methods

The work has been reported in line with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews) Guidelines.

The meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019120858),

RegistryURL:http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=C

RD42019120858.

2.1 Eligibility criteria

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that measured the postoperative analgesia of QLB in patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery. There were no restrictions on the language of the full text. In order to ensure that the outcome indicators would not be interfered by too many factors, the trials we included must compared QLB group with control group with sham block or without block.

2.2 Literature search

We searched the databases of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science (updated to October 15, 2019). A total of 843 literatures about QLB were retrieved. The search was done independently by two authors（Chao Xu and He Zhu） using (quadratus lumborum) and (nerve block or block, Nerve or Blocks, Nerve or Nerve Blocks or Nerve Blockade or Blockade, Nerve or Blockades, Nerve or Nerve Blockades or Chemical Neurolysis or Chemical Neurolyses Or Neurolyses, Chemical or Neurolysis, Chemical) as the search terms.

2.3 Data collection and presentation

The characteristics and results data of the included trials were extracted independently by two authors(Chao Xu and He Zhu), and the work of quality assessment was also completed independently by two authors(Chao Xu and He Zhu) using the Cochrane risk bias tool and Review Manager 5.3 software (Cochrane, London, UK) according to the Cochrane handbook [32]. If the two authors disagree about the quality of the article, it will be decided by the third author(Tianyu Liu) to join the discussion.

To assess the effect of QLB on postoperative analgesia in patients after abdominal surgery, we extracted the following data: cumulative opioid consumption (transformed to morphine equivalent) [33, 34] at 6, 12, 24 and 48h after surgery; time interval from the end of the surgery to the first use of additional analgesic; the number of patients who used additional analgesic after surgery; pain score (rest and dynamic) at 6, 12, 24 and 48h after surgery; nausea and vomiting, itching, sedation, muscle weakness, and postoperative patient satisfaction at 24h after surgery; We contacted the author to ask about the results and got some responses to complete the meta-analysis[16, 18].

2.4 Meta-analysis

Two authors collaborated on data processing using the Review Manager 5.3 software (Cochrane, London, UK) for data synthesis. Considering the heterogeneity among different trials, we chose random effect modeling for the synthesis of dichotomous and continuous data. The synthesized dichotomous variables were represented by the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). The synthesized continuous variables were represented by the mean differences and their 95% CIs. The findings were considered statistically significant when the 95% CI of the OR excluded 1 and the 95% CI of the mean difference excluded 0.

The heterogeneity between trials was determined using an I2 test [35, 36]. If the I2 value was less than 25%, low heterogeneity was considered to exist; If I2 value was greater than 25% and less than 50%, moderate heterogeneity was considered to exist; and if I2 value was greater than 50%, high heterogeneity was considered to exist. If there was high heterogeneity (I2 value ＞50%), a sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the source of heterogeneity. If the included variables were excluded one by one and the I2 value was still greater than 50%, the result was considered to be reliable. If the characteristics of the included trials varied widely, subgroup analysis was performed to reduce heterogeneity.

Results

3.1 Study selection

The two authors(Chao Xu and He Zhu) retrieved a total of 843 articles, 32 of which were viewed in full text， 13 articles that met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed for data[10, 14, 16, 18, 23-31]. Fig. 1 details the search, inclusion and exclusion of the literature. A total of 751 patients (372 patients underwent caesarean section[10, 16, 18, 29-31] and 379 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery[14, 23-28] in the lower abdomen ) were finally included in the data analysis, 373 in the QLB group ( 215 patients were performed with posterior QLB[10, 14, 16, 23, 26, 30, 31] and 130 patients were performed with transmuscular QLB[24, 25, 27-29], and 28 patients were performed lateral QLB[18] ) and 380 in the control group. All QLB were guided by ultrasound and all included patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery were adults. Most trials had demonstrated random sequence generation and 1 trial did not demonstrate this, but there is no evidence to prove the low quality of it [14]. Strict Blinding was performed on all evaluators, ensuring minimal performance bias. However, patients in 4 trials were not blinded and may result in a detection bias of pain scores[10, 17, 18, 22].

Additional file 1 presents the outcomes of included articles, Additional file 2 presents the results of the meta-analysis and Fig. 2 presents the results of quality assessment completed by two authors; the characteristics of the included articles were presented in Additional file 3. Sensitivity analysis was performed on all data synthesis, and no trials were found to reduce I2 to 50%. Since less than 10 articles were included, the Begg’s test was not performed.

3.2 Interval opioid consumption

We synthesized the total consumption of opioids at 12h, 24h and 48h after surgery to quantitatively evaluate whether QLB could reduce the need for opioids in patients after surgery. Cumulative opioid consumption was transformed to intravenous morphine equivalents (morphine 10 mg i.v. = morphine 30mg p.o.= tramadol 100 mg i.v. = ketobemidone 8 mg i.v. = fentanyl 1mg i.v. = sufentanil 0.01mg i.v.).

Compared with control group, QLB group can effectively reduce 6, 12 and 24h cumulative opioid consumption, but the data are highly heterogeneous (I2=92%, 93% and 93%,respectively), after the subgroup analysis, we found: QLB group can effectively reduce 24 and 48h cumulative opioid consumption 10.1mg (95%CI: -13,-7.2; P<0.00001) and 16.22mg (95%CI: -19.39,13.03; P<0.00001) in patients with cesarean section, For patients underwent laparoscopic surgery , QLB group can reduce effectively cumulative opioid consumption at 6, 12 and 24h with 4.91mg (95%CI: -9.68,-0.14; P=0.04), 3.19mg (95%CI: -6.23,-0.16; P=0.04) and 7.95mg (95%CI: -15.88,-0.01; P=0.05) ,respectively. Posterior QLB group and transmuscular QLB group reduced 24h cumulative opioid consumption 4.03mg ( 95%CI: -7.89, -0.19; p=0.04) and 12.44mg ( 95%CI: -20.2, -4.68; p=0.002), respectively (Additional file 2 and Fig. 3).

The cumulative morphine consumption in the laparoscopic subgroup at 12h and in the cesarean section subgroup at 24 and 48h showed low heterogeneity (I2=41%, 18% and 0%,respectively). The rest of the morphine consumption data showed high heterogeneity, and the sensitivity analysis still could not effectively reduce the I2 value.

3.3 Rest pain

Because the included articles used visual analogue scale (VAS)[10, 23, 26, 27, 30, 31] or numerical rating scale scoring (NRS)[14, 16, 18, 29] to assess postoperative rest pain, we synthesized the data using the same scoring method at the same time. Because only one trial[18] evaluated the resti NRS score at 36h after surgery, we calculated pain scores at 6, 12, 24, and 48h postoperatively.

At 6h postoperatively,there was no statistically significant between QLB group and control group in rest VAS score.

At 12h postoperatively, QLB can reduce rest VAS score and NRS score 1.66cm ( 95%CI: -2.07, -1.26, P<0.00001; I2=61%) and 1.1cm ( 95%CI: -1.65, 0.55, P<0.0001; I2=20%) , respectively. The laparoscopic subgroup(I2=64%), cesarean section subgroup(I2=20%) and posterior QLB subgroup (I2=61%) all showed statistical differences compared with control group.

At 24h postoperatively, QLB can reduce rest VAS score and NRS score 2.05cm ( 95%CI: -3.39, -0.7, P=0.003; I2=97%) and 2.34cm ( 95%CI: -3.22, -1.45, P<0.00001; I2=94%) , respectively. Compared with control group, QLB subgroup can reduce NRS score 1.07cm ( 95%CI: -1.51, -0.62, P<0.00001; I2=0%) in patients underwent cesarean section (Additional file 2 and Additional Fig. 4).

 At 48h after operation, QLB can only reduce rest VAS score 0.81cm ( 95%CI: -1.56, -0.03, P=0.04; I2=0%) but can not statistically reduce NRS score.

3.4 Dynamic pain

Six trials[10, 14, 16, 29-31] evaluated postoperative dynamic pain scores, 3 trials[10, 30, 31] used VAS, and 3 trials[14, 16, 29] used NRS. [10, 30, 31]. Because few trials could be included, we analysed pain scores at 6, 12 and 24h after operation.

Only at 24h postoperatively, QLB can effectively reduce dynamic NRS scores 1.76cm ( 95%CI: -2.29, -1.22, P<0.00001; I2=83%),the dynamic NRS of patients after cesarean section was reduced by 0.89cm (95%CI: -1.67, -0.12, P=0.02; I2=0%) (Additional file 2).

3.5 Opioid-related adverse effects

Seven articles [10, 15-19, 22] reported the incidence of nausea and vomiting 24 hours after surgery, and only three of these articles reported nausea and vomiting[15, 17, 19]. Two articles [14, 16] used NRS scores to measure the degree of nausea and vomiting. We synthesized the incidence of nausea and vomiting 24 hours after surgery. There was no significant difference in the incidence of nausea and vomiting between the QLB group and the control group.

Few observations were reported about the incidence of itching and sedation[10, 18, 22], therefore statistical synthesis was not performed. Only one article[10] observed the incidence of itching and sedation (one case of itching and one case of sedation), and it was not possible to determine whether a significant difference exists between the QLB group and the control group.

3.6 Additionalanalgesic

Three articles[14, 18, 29] reported the time interval to the first additional analgesic ,and 5 articles[14, 18, 23, 26, 28] reported the numbers of patients who used additional analgesic. No statistical differences were found after subgroup analysis (Additional file 2).

3.7 Opioid-related adverse effects

Eight articles[10, 14, 16, 18, 26, 28, 29, 31] reported the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) within 24 hours. We found that statistical differences only exist in the transmuscular QLB subgroup with an odds ratio of 0.29 (95%CI：0.12，0.70，P=0.005， I2=0%) （Additional file 2）.

Four articles[10, 18, 26, 31] reported the incidence of pruritus within 24 hours after surgery, and no statistical differences were found after analysis (Additional file 2 and Fig.5 ).

3.8 Patient satisfaction

Three trials[23, 28, 29] performed patient satisfaction surveys, but different scales were used( Bruggemann comfort scale (BCS) scores, Quality of Recovery 40 (QoR-40) questionnaire score and obstetric quality-of-recovery scoring tool( ObsQoR -11)), We did not perform data synthesis.

Zhu et al[28] reported that the recovery quality of patients in the QLB group was significantly higher than that of the control group. No statistical difference was found in the other two articles[23, 31].

Discussion

4.1 Postoperative analgesia

The results of the statistical synthesis show that the QLB can effectively reduce the cumulative opioid consumption within 24 hours after surgery, even the pain score of 48h after surgery. The blocking range of the QLB may explain this result; a cadaver study [37] showed that the QLB can stably block the T12-L3 nerve roots, and another cadaver study [38] claimed that the coloring agent of the QLB can reach the thoracic sympathetic trunk, which can effectively reduce visceral pain.

Interestingly, for patients underwent laparoscopic surgery, statistically significant analgesic effect began to appear from 6h after operation; for patients with cesarean section, the analgesic effect often showed statistical difference from 24h after operation. Compared with the control group, the QLB group had a lower reduction in dynamic pain score than the rest pain score. There is no statistical difference in time to the first additional analgesic and numbers of patients who used additional analgesic. These seem to indicate that the postoperative analgesic effect of QLB is more pronounced when the pain is relatively mild.

QLB showed limited analgesic efficacy in patients undergoing cesarean section within 12 hours of surgery. However it's undeniable that QLB reduced the cumulative consumption of opioids , rest pain scores and dynamic pain scores in patients underwent cesarean section at 24h postoperatively, and the heterogeneity of these data was low, indicating that QLB can provide good analgesia for parturients. All QLB were performed at the end of cesarean section, which would not affect the operation. Blanco et al [8] have shown that QLB has a better postoperative analgesia after cesarean section than TAPB. QLB may be a good choice for parturients who are prone to postoperative pain.

Without direct comparison, we only found differences in 24h postoperatively cumulative opioid consumption between posterior QLB and transmuscular QLB (4.03g (95%CI:-7.86,-0.19), I2=71% vs 12.44g (95%CI:-20.2,-4.68), I2=84%), limited by heterogeneity, no certain assertion can be made. One trial[39] directly compared posterior QLB and transmuscular QLB, and found that the mixed effect of the two approaches was better, but the analgesic effect of the two approaches was not statistically different.

4.2 PONV

The occurrence of nausea and vomiting after lower abdominal surgery is one of the most common side effects, mainly related to the traction of the intestine and the application of postoperative opioids. As a part of postoperative analgesia, QLB may have the potential to reduce the use of opioids. Although the cumulative opioid consumption in each subgroup decreased significantly within 24 h after surgery, only the transmuscular QLB group[28, 29] had statistically preventive effects on PONV and showed low heterogeneity. This may be related to the more reduction on postoperative opioid consumption of transmuscular QLB compared to posterior QLB (Additional file 2 and Fig. 3). Because few articles were included, this conclusion is restrictive. In the future, more research is needed to study the effect of transmuscular on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

4.3 Performance of QLB

Seven of included RCTs [10, 14, 16, 23, 26, 30, 31] performed posterior QLB, 5 RCTs [24, 25, 27-29] performed transmuscular QLB, and 1 RCT [18] performed lateral QLB. Although QLB is an invasive procedure, local anesthetics and ultrasound can be used to minimize damage to the patient. Because the structure of the abdominal wall muscles involved in the QLB is difficult to locate, the QLB procedures in all of the included articles were performed under ultrasound guidance. Under ultrasound guidance, transversus abdominis, the external oblique and the internal oblique can be clearly identified [10],which reduces the difficulty of executing QLB.

4.4 Complications of QLB

Because there is no great vessel and loose connective tissue around the optimal point of injection, this reduces the possibility of tissue damage, and complications of local hematoma and abdominal organ damage have not been reported. However, because local anesthetics can spread to the lumbar plexus, there is a potential risk of quadriceps weakness and accidental falls[40, 41].

SaM et al[42] reported that after 30-40 minutes of QLB in two patients, severe hypotension and tachycardia occurred, possibly due to the spread of local anesthetic to the paravertebral space and epidural space, leading to sympathetic blockade.

4.5 Limitations

Our meta-analysis had some limitations. First, the number of articles included was small, and the amount of data that could be synthesized was limited. Because the articles obtained during the search were limited, only the amount of literature for the lower abdominal surgery[10, 14, 16, 18, 23-31] was met and no analysis of upper abdomen[19, 43], hip[44-47] and lower limb surgery was performed. Some outcomes could not be analyzed because of insufficient documentation. The incidence of postoperative opioid-related complications was too small, which may mask the significant difference between the QLB group and the control group. Furthermore, prospective studies of patients with long-term follow-up were not retrieved, making it impossible to judge the impact of the QLB on long-term prognosis in patients. Finally, the heterogeneity within the literature is large and cannot be eliminated by subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis, which affects the reliability of the results.

Conclusion

QLB showed effective postoperative analgesia at 6-24h after laparoscopic surgery and 24-48h after cesarean section. Transmuscular QLB appears to have more reduction on postoperative opioid consumption compared to posterior QLB. Transmuscular QLB had statistically preventive effects on PONV. In future, more RCTs are needed to support our conclusions.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Authors’ contributions

L , X, Z and Q made substantial contributions to conception and design of the study; GL, GX and S searched literature, extracted data from the collected literature and analyzed the data; L wrote the manuscript; X and Z revised the manuscript; All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Not Applicable.

Addition material

Additional file 1

Additional file 1 Outcomes of the included articles, including published year, surgery, sample size, groups, anaesthesia and outcomes of included articles.

Additional file 2

Additional file 2 Results of meta-analysis.

Additional file 3

Additional file 3 Characteristics of the retrieved studies, including published year, surgery, block timing, block solution, surgicial analgesia, supplemental postoperative and reason for excluded patients.

Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable

Consent for publication Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests

Author details1 Key Laboratory of Anesthesia and Analgesia, Xuzhou Medical University and Department of Anesthesiology, Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jangsu, China and 2 Department of Anesthesiology, Peking University People’s Hospital and Peking University Health Science Center, Peking, China.

Abbreviations

QLB : quadratus lumborum block. RCT : randomized controlled trials. VAS: visual analogue scale. NRS :numerical rating scale. PONV : postoperative nausea and vomiting. CI : Confidence interval. OR : odds ratios.

References

  1. Apfelbaum JL CC, Mehta SS, Gan TJ: Postoperative pain experience: Results from a national survey suggest postoperative pain continues to be undermanaged.Anesthesia and analgesia 2003:97:534-540.
  2. Gan TJ HA, Miller TE, White W: Incidence, patient satisfaction, and perceptions of postsurgical pain: Results from a US national survey.Apfelbaum JL Curr Med Res Opin 2014:30:149-160.
  3. Chou R, Gordon DB, de Leon-Casasola OA, Rosenberg JM, Bickler S, Brennan T, Carter T, Cassidy CL, Chittenden EH, Degenhardt E et al: Management of Postoperative Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American Pain Society, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists' Committee on Regional Anesthesia, Executive Committee, and Administrative Council. J Pain 2016, 17(2):131-157.
  4. Abdallah FW, Adham AM, Chan VW, Kanazi GE: Analgesic benefits of preincisional transversus abdominis plane block for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia 2013, 27(3):536-538.
  5. Abdallah FW, Laffey JG, Halpern SH, Brull R: Duration of analgesic effectiveness after the posterior and lateral transversus abdominis plane block techniques for transverse lower abdominal incisions: a meta-analysis. British journal of anaesthesia 2013, 111(5):721-735.
  6. Fuchs F, Benhamou D: [Post-partum management after cesarean delivery. Guidelines for clinical practice]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2015, 44(10):1111-1117.
  7. Blanco R: Tap block under ultrasound guidance: the description of a “no pops” technique. Regional anesthesia and pain medicine 2007, 32(5):130-130.
  8. 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. Regional anesthesia and pain medicine 2016, 41(6):757‐762.
  9. Murouchi T, Iwasaki S, Yamakage M: Quadratus lumborum block: Analgesic effects and chronological ropivacaine concentrations after laparoscopic surgery. Regional anesthesia and pain medicine 2016, 41(2):146-150.
  10. Blanco R, Ansari T, Girgis E: Quadratus lumborum block for postoperative pain after caesarean section: a randomised controlled trial. European journal of anaesthesiology 2015, 32(11):812‐818.
  11. Dongliang P, Xiaona W, Jun Y: Ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum block combined with dizocine for postoperative analgesia after radical resection of colorectal cancer. 2018, 16(11):60-62.
  12. G Y, S J, H L, Z W: Evaluation of the effect of quadratus lumborum block on analgesia after cesarean section. 2018, 34(15):2567-2570.
  13. Hussein MM: Ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum block in pediatrics: trans-muscular versus intra-muscular approach. Journal of Anesthesia 2018, 32(6):850-855.
  14. Ishio J, Komasawa N, Kido H, Minami T: Evaluation of ultrasound-guided posterior quadratus lumborum block for postoperative analgesia after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. Journal of clinical anesthesia 2017, 41:1‐4.
  15. Jinliang C, Xiaolu X, Dagu L, Zuotian Y, Luoyang R: Analgesic Efficacy of Ultrasound-guided Quadratuslumborum Block Undergoing Abdominal Colorectal Surgery. 2017, 49(5):525-528.
  16. Krohg A: The Analgesic Effect of Ultrasound-Guided Quadratus Lumborum Block After Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Clinical Trial. 2017.
  17. Longsheng Z, Xulin L, Huankai Z, Duo Y, Gengbin L, Zhiliang H: Effect of ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum block on postoperative analgesia in parturient woman undergoing cesarean delivery. 2018, 39(9):1053-1057.
  1. Mieszkowski MM, Mayzner-Zawadzka E, Tuyakov B, Mieszkowska M, Zukowski M, Wasniewski T, Onichimowski D: Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Quadratus Lumborum Block type I using ropivacaine in postoperative analgesia after a cesarean section - a controlled clinical study. Ginekologia polska 2018, 89(2):89-96.
  2. Okmen K, Okmen BM, Topal S: Ultrasound-guided posterior quadratus lumborum block for postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized controlled double blind study. Journal of clinical anesthesia 2018, 49:112-117.
  3. Oksuz G, Bilal B, Gurkan Y, Urfalioglu A, Arslan M, Gisi G, Oksuz H: Quadratus Lumborum Block Versus Transversus Abdominis Plane Block in Children Undergoing Low Abdominal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Regional anesthesia and pain medicine 2017, 42(5):674-679.
  4. Q Y, K Y, Y W, L S, W W, L X: Effect of quadratus lumborum block on postoperative analgesia and T lymphocyte subsets after radical resection of rectal cancer. 2018, 56(14):127-131.
  5. Tao S, Qingsheng M, Li S, Hongguang B: Effect of ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum block on efficacy of postoperative analgesia after caesarean section 2018, 38(4):435-438.
  6. 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. Anaesthesia and intensive care 2019, 47(2):146-151.
  7. Dam M, Hansen CK, Poulsen TD, Azawi NH, Wolmarans M, Chan V, Laier GH, Bendtsen TF, Borglum J: Transmuscular quadratus lumborum block for percutaneous nephrolithotomy reduces opioid consumption and speeds ambulation and discharge from hospital: a single centre randomised controlled trial. British journal of anaesthesia 2019, 123(2):e350-e358.
  8. Yayik AM, Ahiskalioglu A, Alici HA, Celik EC, Cesur S, Ahiskalioglu EO, Demirdogen SO, Karaca O, Adanur S: Less painful ESWL with ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum block: a prospective randomized controlled study. Scandinavian Journal of Urology 2019.
  9. Okmen K, Okmen BM: Ultrasound-guided anterior quadratus lumborum block for postoperative pain after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: randomized controlled trial. Korean journal of anesthesiology 2019.
  10. Kilic E, Bulut E: Quadratus Lumborum Block III for Postoperative Pain After Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation 2018, 46(4):272-275.
  11. Zhu M, Qi Y, He H, Lou J, Pei Q, Mei Y: Analgesic effect of the ultrasound-guided subcostal approach to transmuscular quadratus lumborum block in patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiology 2019, 19(1).
  12. Hansen CK, Dam M, Steingrimsdottir GE, Laier GH, Lebech M, Poulsen TD, Chan VWS, Wolmarans M, Bendtsen TF, Brglum J: 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. Regional anesthesia and pain medicine 2019, 44(9):896-900.
  13. Tamura T, Yokota S, Ando M, Kubo Y, Nishiwaki K: A triple-blinded randomized trial comparing spinal morphine with posterior quadratus lumborum block after cesarean section. International journal of obstetric anesthesia 2019.
  14. Irwin R, Stanescu S, Buzaianu C, Rademan M, Roddy J, Gormley C, Tan T: Quadratus lumborum block for analgesia after caesarean section: a randomised controlled trial. Anaesthesia 2019.
  15. Higgins JPT, Green S, Cochrane Collaboration.: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester, England ; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
  16. Albrecht E, Guyen O, Jacot-Guillarmod A, Kirkham KR: The analgesic efficacy of local infiltration analgesia vs femoral nerve block after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British journal of anaesthesia 2016, 116(5):597-609.
  17. Jylli L, Lundeberg S, Langius-Eklof A, Olsson GL: Comparison of the analgesic efficacy of ketobemidone and morphine for management of postoperative pain in children: a randomized, controlled study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2004, 48(10):1256-1259.
  18. Huedo-Medina TB, Sanchez-Meca J, Marin-Martinez F, Botella J: Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index?Psychol Methods 2006, 11(2):193-206.
  19. Higgins JP, Thompson SG: Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002, 21(11):1539-1558.
  20. Carline L, McLeod GA, Lamb C: A cadaver study comparing spread of dye and nerve involvement after three different quadratus lumborum blocks. British journal of anaesthesia 2016, 117(3):387‐394.
  21. Dam M, Moriggl B, Hansen CK, Hoermann R, Bendtsen TF, Børglum J: The pathway of injectate spread with the transmuscular quadratus lumborum block: A cadaver study. Anesthesia and analgesia 2017, 125(1):303-312.
  22. Kang W, Lu D, Yang X, Zhou Z, Chen X, Chen K, Zhou X, Feng X: Postoperative analgesic effects of various quadratus lumborum block approaches following cesarean section: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Pain Research 2019, 12:2305-2312.
  23. Ueshima H, Hiroshi O: Incidence of lower-extremity muscle weakness after quadratus lumborum block. Journal of clinical anesthesia 2018, 44:104.
  24. Wikner M: Unexpected motor weakness following quadratus lumborum block for gynaecological laparoscopy. Anaesthesia 2017, 72(2):230-232.
  25. Sá MC, José Miguel Reis, Hugo Esteves, Marta Sampaio, José Gouveia, Isabel Carballada, Pilar Pinheiro, Célia Machado, Duarte Quadratus lumborum block: are we aware of its side effects? A report of 2 cases. Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology 2016.
  26. Zhu Q, Li L, Yang ZY, Shen JM, Zhu R, Wen Y, Cai WW, Liu L: Ultrasound guided continuous Quadratus Lumborum block hastened recovery in patients undergoing open liver resection: a randomized controlled, open-label trial. Bmc Anesthesiology 2019, 19.
  27. McCrum CL, Ben-David B, Shin JJ, Wright VJ: Quadratus lumborum block provides improved immediate postoperative analgesia and decreased opioid use compared with a multimodal pain regimen following hip arthroscopy. Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery 2018, 5(3):233-239.
  28. He J, Zheng XQ, Luo CH, Huang ZX, He WY, Wang HB, Yang CX: [Effects and safety of quadratus lumborum block in analgesia after hip arthroplasty]. Zhonghua yi xue za zhi 2018, 98(8):565-569.
  29. Ueshima H, Tanaka N, Otake H, Ishida Y: Anterior quadratus lumborum block provides more effective perioperative pain relief for total hip replacement. Anesthesia and analgesia 2018, 126(4):672.
  30. Parras T, Blanco R: Randomised trial comparing the transversus abdominis plane block posterior approach or quadratus lumborum block type I with femoral block for postoperative analgesia in femoral neck fracture, both ultrasound-guided. Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion 2016, 63(3):141‐148.