Page 289 - EJMO-9-3

Eurasian Journal of
Medicine and Oncology Preperitoneal infiltration after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

collected during the structured interview on the first post- 3. Results
operative morning. Patients were asked to consider factors
such as ease of falling asleep, frequency of waking, and The subsequent tables and figures illustrate the findings
overall restfulness during the night. 4 of the current investigation. Table 1 reveals no significant
differences in demographic characteristics between the
2.7. Sample size TAP block and preperitoneal groups. Both groups were
comparable in age, sex distribution, body mass index,
Sample size calculation was based on the difference in American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status
post-operative pain incidence between the group with classification, and sleep quality. For instance, the average
preperitoneal bupivacaine infiltration and the placebo age in the TAP block group was 42.45 ± 12.37 years; in the
group, retrieved from previous research. The G*Power preperitoneal group, it was 41.80 ± 10.86 years (p=0.861).
10
program version 3.1.9.4 was used to calculate the Similarly, the body mass index was 23.60 ± 2.04 kg/m
2
sample size based on an expected 27% difference and a in the TAP block group and 24.20 ± 2.98 kg/m in the
2
large effect size (f = 1.061195). Using a two-tailed test, preperitoneal group (p=0.462).
α error = 0.05, and power = 90.0%, the total calculated
sample size was 40 patients, divided into two equal Table 2 reveals no statistically significant difference in
groups (Figure 1). sleep quality between groups (p>0.05).
2.8. Statistical analysis Table 3 and Figure 2 indicate that the VAS scores for post-
operative pain were assessed at various intervals (0, 2, 4, 8,
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 23.0 12, and 24 h). Significant differences were observed at the
(SPSS Inc., United States), was employed to analyze the 8- and 12-h marks, with the preperitoneal group reporting
recorded data. Parametric quantitative data distribution higher median pain scores than the TAP block group. At
was represented as mean ± standard deviation and ranges. 8 h, the median VAS score was 3 (IQR 3–3) for the TAP
Conversely, non-parametric variables were represented block group and 4 (IQR 4–5) for the preperitoneal group
as median with inter-quartile range (IQR). In addition, (p=0.027). At 12 h, the median VAS score was 3 (IQR 3–4)
qualitative variables were presented as percentages and in the TAP block group and 5 (IQR 4–6) in the preperitoneal
numbers. The Shapiro–Wilk test and Kolmogorov– group (p=0.019). The differences were not statistically
Smirnov test were employed to investigate the normality significant at other time intervals (0, 2, 4, and 24 h).
of the data.
Table 4 reveals no significant difference between the
The Mann–Whitney U test was performed for two- two groups regarding the occurrence of PONV. In the
group comparisons in non-parametric data, while the TAP block group, 60% of patients experienced PONV,
independent-sample t-test of significance was employed compared to 50% in the preperitoneal group (p=0.525).
when comparing two means. The Chi-square and Fisher’s This suggests that both analgesic techniques have a similar
exact tests were performed to compare groups with impact on PONV, highlighting that the advantage of TAP
qualitative data, except when the expected count in any block lies primarily in its pain-relieving efficacy rather
cell was <5. The margin of error accepted was 5%, and than in mitigating nausea or vomiting.
the confidence interval was 95%. Therefore, a p<0.05 was
deemed significant.

Figure 2. Comparison of the Visual Analog Scale between the transversus
abdominis plane block and preperitoneal groups
Figure 1. Distributions in a two-tailed t-test Abbreviation: hrs.: Hours

Volume 9 Issue 3 (2025) 281 doi: 10.36922/EJMO025180164