Skip to main content

The minimum effective concentration (MEC90) of ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum block for analgesia after cesarean delivery: a dose finding study

Abstract

Background

Quadratus lumborum block was recently proposed as an alternative technique for post-cesarean delivery analgesia. However, there is not a definite optimum concentration of local anesthetics. A biased coin design up-and-down method was used to explore the minimum effective concentration of ropivacaine in quadratus lumborum block for satisfactory analgesia after cesarean delivery.

Methods

Fifty-six patients weighing 60–80 kg after cesarean section and with ages between 18 and 40 years were recruited. For the posterior quadratus lumborum block, a volume of 25 ml of the assigned concentration of ropivacaine was injected bilaterally.

The concentration administered to each patient depended on the response to the previous dose. The first patient received 0.25%. If a successful block was observed, the next patient was randomized to receive the same ropivacaine concentration (with a probability of 0.89) or 0.025% less (with a probability of 0.11). After any block failure, the concentration was always increased by 0.025% for the next. The study ended when 45 successful blocks were obtained.

We defined effective quadratus lumborum block as a resting visual analog score ≤ 3 and the absence of a need for rescue anesthetics.

Results

The 90% minimum effective concentration of ropivacaine was 0.335% (95% CI 0.306 to 0.375%), and the 99% minimum effective concentration was 0.371% (95% CI 0.355 to 0.375%). The sufentanil consumption was 11 (11,13) and 24 (22,27) μg at 12 and 24 hours after quadratus lumborum block, respectively.

Conclusions

The optimum dosage of ropivacaine is a 25 ml volume of 0.335% for quadratus lumborum block after cesarean delivery.

Trial registration

The study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. ChiCTR2000040415).

Peer Review reports

Background

According to the US national report, approximately 1.3 million patients accepted cesarean section during 2018 [1]. It is noted that cesarean section is associated with severe pain after surgery. Krohg et al. reported that the pain intensity reaches > 6 after cesarean section [2]. In addition, severe pain disturbs mother-newborn bonding and breast feeding.

Quadratus lumborum block (QLB) was recently proposed as an alternative technique for post-cesarean delivery analgesia [3,4,5,6]. It involves local anesthetic injection into the thoracolumbar fascia adjacent to the quadratus lumborum muscle, which may facilitate the spread of local anesthetic into the thoracic paravertebral space [5]. QLB significantly reduces opioid requirements and improves analgesic effects after cesarean delivery [6, 7]. Several meta-analyses have proven that bilateral QLB significantly reduces 24-hour opioid consumption after cesarean section [7,8,9]. However, various concentrations of local anesthetics were used in previous studies; for example, 0.375% ropivacaine was administered in Hansen’s study [9], whereas 0.2% ropivacaine was used in Kang’s work [10]. There is not a definite optimum concentration of local anesthetics, which fluctuates from 0.125 to 0.375% [4, 11,12,13].

We speculate that an adequate concentration of local anesthetics could facilitate analgesic effects after cesarean delivery. Because QLB is usually administered in a single shot, the minimum effective concentration in 90% of patients (MEV90) might be more clinically valid than 50%. We applied a biased coin design (BCD) up-and-down method (UDM) (BCD-UDM) to explore the MEC90 of ropivacaine (Naropin®, AstraZeneca) in QLB for satisfactory analgesia post-cesarean delivery.

Methods

This was a prospective, single-blind, dose-finding trial. The study was approved by the Clinical Trial Ethics Committee of Chengdu Women’s and Children’s Central Hospital (No. 2020119) and was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. ChiCTR2000040415).

Patient enrollment

After obtaining written informed consent, we prospectively enrolled patients undergoing selective cesarean delivery from December 2021 to March 2022 at Chengdu Women’s and Children’s Central Hospital. Inclusion criteria were age between 18 and 40 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status IorII, and body weight between 60 and 80 kg. Exclusion criteria were refusal to participate in the study, allergies to local anesthetics, preexisting neuropathy, coagulopathy, and postpartum hemorrhage. Eliminating criteria were block failure such that the sensory block level was behind T8, toxicity of local anesthetics, and no compression of the uterus within 2 hours after QLB.

Ultrasound-guided QLB

The patient was routinely monitored in the operating room and PACU. The surgery was completed under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. Ketorolac (30 mg) was injected intravenously at the end of the surgery, and then a patient control analgesia pump with 1 μg/ml sufentanil was connected to the patient. PCA 2 ml and 0.5 ml/h continuous infusion via v-line were provided (maximal volume within 1 hour 10 ml). Rescue analgesia consisted of 30 mg ketorolac iv injection (no more than 4 times within 24 hours).

An experienced anesthesiologist who was blinded to the concentration assignment until study completion performed the QLB block and administered the medication. In the PACU, approximately 1 hour after the end of the surgery, when the patient felt mild abdominal pain, posterior QLB (Type II) was performed bilaterally in the supine position (Supplementary file 1).

A broadband (2.5–5 MHz) convex transducer was used.

For the QLB, the transducer was placed at the level of the navel and moved cranially from the midclavicular to the midaxillary line with the 3 abdominal wall muscles clearly identified, and the aponeurosis of the external oblique muscle was visualized. Then, the quadratus lumborum muscle was found underneath the internal oblique muscle. An inner stylet of a 20 G intravenous catheter was advanced in-plane under US guidance in the anteroposterior direction through the muscle layers of the abdominal wall. The needle tip was at the thoracolumbar fascia between the quadratus lumborum muscle and the erectus muscle, which was typeIIof QLB block. Two milliliters of saline was injected to verify the needle position. On each side, a volume of 25 ml of the assigned solution was then injected under repeated aspiration.

The upper sensory block level was evaluated by testing the skin sensitivity to iced water in the midclavicular line bilaterally 1 hour after completion of QLB. The pain intensity was evaluated by the visual analog scale (VAS). Motor block was evaluated according to the Bromage scale (0 = full flexion of the feet and knees, 1 = just able to move the knees, 2 = able to move the feet only, and 3 = unable to move the feet or knees).

We defined effective QLB only if the patient reported a resting VAS score of ≤3 and had no requirement for rescue analgesics (i.e., PCA = 0), even after compression of the uterus within 2 hours after completion of the block. The block was considered ineffective if the patient needed additional analgesics using PCA or if the resting VAS score was more than 3 within 2 hours after the QLB.

Biased coin design up-and-down sequential method (BCD-UDM)

The concentration assignment was carried out using a BCD, where the concentration of ropivacaine administered to each patient depended on the response of the previous patient. The first patient recruited received 25 ml of ropivacaine 0.25% based on clinical practice and a pilot study. If a successful block was observed with the first patient, the next patient was randomized to receive the same ropivacaine concentration (with a probability of 0.89) or to receive a concentration 0.025% less (with a probability of 0.11). In contrast, if any block insufficient was identified, the concentration was always increased by 0.025% for the next subject. The study ended when 45 successful blocks were obtained. A maximum concentration of 0.4% ropivacaine was set as the upper limit. This means that if a patient experienced a failed block when administered the maximal concentration, the concentration administered to the following patient would not be increased.

The 44 numbered, randomized assignments for successful blocks were generated by a computer and sealed in 44 envelopes by a resident. The envelope preparation and drug preparation were accomplished by a resident who took no further part in the study.

Primary outcomes

These were the resting pain score and total volume of sufentanil consumption at 0, 1, 2, 4, 12, and 24 hours after QLB completion.

Secondary outcomes

These were the pain score upon pressing of the abdomen and the bromage score at 0, 1, 2, 4, and 12 hours after QLB completion.

Patient characteristics and block complications within 24 h were recorded.

Implementation and blinding

QLB performance and data recording were performed by Rong Cao and Linmei Deng, who were blinded to the interventions. Jing Yang enrolled participants and prepared injections according to the randomized allocation. Sequence generation and analysis were performed by Xuehan Li.

Statistics

To estimate MEC90, a sample size of at least 20 (and at best, over 40) was recommended by Stylianou et al. after performing extensive trials [14, 15]. Therefore, we choose a minimum of 45 positive responses to accommodate potential dropout. We prospectively recruited patients until 45 positive responses were obtained.

Data are reported as the median (interquartile range) and mean (SD) as appropriate. Categorical variables are presented as numbers (proportions). Statistical analysis was carried out using the R statistical software package, version 3.2.1 (2015 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; ISBN 3–900,051–07-0, URL http://www.r-project.org) and SPSS 22 (SPSS Inc. USA).

The MEC90 was calculated using isotonic regression, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was derived from the 2000 bootstrap replicates. Further analysis was performed using isotonic regression and bootstrapping CI to calculate the minimum effective concentration for a 99% success rate of block (MEC99) [16].

Results

A total of 56 patients were enrolled; 2 patients were excluded due to the sensory block level being lower than T8, and 1 patient was excluded due to the lack of abdominal pressing with an intrauterine balloon. 53 of the patients completed the study and were analyzed. The flow diagram for this study is shown in Fig. 1. The demographics and baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. The median (IQR) age of the patients was 29 (27, 31). The duration of surgery was 41.0 (39.0, 48.0) min, and the interval time between the start of spinal anesthesia and the start of QLB was 140.0 (135.0, 150.0) min. Patient parameters comprising the pain score and sufentanil consumption are shown in Table 2.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The study flow chart

Table 1 Demographic characteristics (n = 53)
Table 2 clinic parameters

The sequence of successful and unsuccessful QLB in patients recruited is presented in Fig. 2. The algorithm-adjusted response rates of the observed and pooled adjacent violators are presented in Table 3. The MEC90 of ropivacaine was 0.335% (95% CI 0.306 to 0.375%). By further analysis, the MEC99 was estimated to be 0.371% (95% CI 0.355 to 0.375%). No severe adverse events were detected during the QLB procedures, such as tinnitus, local anesthetic systemic toxicity, new-onset cardiac arrhythmia, nausea and vomiting, and hypotension.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The biased coin design up-and-down sequence. Graph of successful (solid circle) and failed (hollow circle) quadratus lumborum block (QLB) with different ropivacaine concentrations. The horizontal line is the calculated minimum effective concentration of ropivacaine providing successful QLB in 90% of patients (MEC90)

Table 3 Observed and pooled-adjacent violators algorithm-adjusted response rates

Discussion

Dixon’s up-and-down sequential method is a commonly used method to study the 50% minimum effective concentration (MEC50), but a 50% success rate cannot meet the needs of the clinical practice of a single shot. It has been considered imprecise [17] that the statistical methods applied to extrapolate the data to the relevant higher concentration of local anesthetics. Several recent reports have used the BCD method to determine the MEV90 or MEC90 of the local anesthetics used for regional blocks [16, 18]. This is considered a better method than Dixon’s up-and-down method. By utilizing the BCD-UDM, we found that the MEC90 of ropivacaine for QLB in parturients was 0.334 (0.3058, 0.3749), and that of MEC99 was 0.3708 (0.355, 0.375). In many countries, the officially recommended highest dose of ropivacaine is 225 mg [19], and bilateral 0.375% ropivacaine 25 ml for QLB is relatively safe.

The MEC90 of ropivacaine for a successful caudal epidural block in the female patient and a successful axillary brachial plexus block are 0.353 and 0.44%, respectively [17, 18]. Their definition of successful block is pain-free surgery without additional analgesics. In the present study, our definition was tolerable mild pain without the need for rescue opioids even after pressing the abdomen within at least 2 hours from T0. At that time, the effects of spinal anesthesia had worn off as the sensory block duration of ropivacaine in spinal anesthesia was 132.5 min [20]. It is reasonable that the concentration of ropivacaine for post-CD analgesia is lower than that for intraoperative analgesia. It was observed in our study that the resting pain VAS score might be less than 1 when the concentration is high, representing an adequate analgesic effect. Ropivacaine can preferentially block sensory nerves and has less effect on motor function [21, 22]. We observed that posterior QLB did not reduce leg movement (the bromage score was 0) when the concentration of ropivacaine was within 0.375%.

Generally, the effect of a single injection of QLB could spread to T7-L1 [23,24,25]. In the pilot study, we found that there was a higher rate of achieving T7 with 25 ml ropivacaine than with 20 ml. To ensure a sufficient level of sensory block, we advanced the needle along the paravertebral space after opening the fascia by injectate. Therefore, on the part of our patient, the sensory block level was T6, the same as for subcostal QLB [24]. The mechanism of this effect of QLB may be that the local anesthetic injected will not only spread in the fascial plane but also spread to the thoracic paravertebral space along the endothoracic fascia [5, 26]. Hence, QLB can block the somatic nerves and thoracic sympathetic trunk of the lower thoracic levels and abdominal viscera afferent nerves that share the same anatomical pathway of sympathetic nerves through the peripheral nervous system [27, 28]. Because of this, many studies have found that QLB has a better analgesia effect than TAP after major surgery [29, 30]. However, several anatomic studies have revealed the indeterminacy of the paravertebral spread [31,32,33,34]. A most recent net meta-analysis concluded that there is no significant difference between the analgesia effect of QLB and TAP [35]. This may explain the uncertainty of the pain score upon pressing of the abdomen in patients after CD. Post-CD pain can arise from incision, uterine contraction, and pressing of the abdomen to observe vaginal bleeding. Similar to the situation during the operation, when the abdomen is pressed, the visceral pain is not only of pelvic origin but also arises from other intra-abdominal structures, e.g., the peritoneum, which is innervated by sensory afferents reaching T5 [36]. Therefore, adequate analgesia for pressing pain requires a higher block level or other types of analgesia models.

Although QLB applied after CD is effective, its duration is not satisfactory enough in clinical practice. A higher concentration of local anesthetics can prolong the duration. Dam M et al. reported that the first opioid request was more than 10 hours of transmuscular quadratus lumborum block for percutaneous nephrolithotomy with 30 ml 0.75% ropivacaine [37]. In addition, 30 ml 0.375% ropivacaine was used for 5.2 hours after CD [9]. Another useful method is adjuvants such as dexmedetomidine. Dexmedetomidine used as an adjuvant has a longer time to first analgesic intake and necessitates less rescue analgesia in the erector spinae plane block [38].

Limitations: Because urinary catheters were pulled out 24 hours after surgery, we cannot exactly assess the first ambulation time. We did not assess the emotional state of the parturient, which might have influenced the patient’s need to receive analgesics and report pain scores.

Conclusion

The optimum dosage of ropivacaine for QLB after CD is a 25 ml volume of 0.335% in patients of 60–80 kg body weight.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

QLB:

Quadratus lumborum block

TAP:

Transverse abdominal plane

CD:

Cesarean delivery

MEC 90:

The 90% minimum effective concentration

BCD-UDM:

Biased coin design up-and-down sequential method

PCA:

Patient controlled analgesia

VAS:

Visual analog scale

PACU:

Post anesthesia care unit

References

  1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK. Births: final data for 2018. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2019;68(13):1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Krohg A, Ullensvang K, Rosseland LA, Langesæter E, Sauter AR. The analgesic effect of ultrasound-guided Quadratus Lumborum block after cesarean delivery: a randomized clinical trial. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(2):559–65. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Verma K, Malawat A, Jethava D, Jethava DD. Comparison of transversus abdominis plane block and quadratus lumborum block for post-caesarean section analgesia: a randomised clinical trial. Indian J Anaesth. 2019;63(10):820–6. https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.IJA_61_19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000000299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Elsharkawy H, El-Boghdadly K, Barrington M. Quadratus Lumborum block: anatomical concepts, mechanisms, and techniques. Anesthesiology. 2019;130(2):322–35. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000002524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Singh NP, Makkar JK, Borle A, et al. The analgesic efficacy of quadratus lumborum block in caesarean delivery: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. J Anesth. 2020;34(6):814–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-020-02822-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tan HS, Taylor C, Weikel D, Barton K, Habib AS. Quadratus lumborum block for postoperative analgesia after cesarean delivery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial-sequential analysis. J Clin Anesth. 2020;67:110003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.110003.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijoa.2020.02.005.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hansen CK, Dam M, Steingrimsdottir GE, 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://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2019-100540.

  10. Kang W, Lu D, Yang X, 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://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S202772.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Irwin R, Stanescu S, Buzaianu C, Rademan M, Roddy J, Gormley C, et al. Quadratus lumborum block for analgesia after caesarean section: a randomised controlled trial. Anaesthesia. 2019;75(1):89–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.14852.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mieszkowski MM, 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://doi.org/10.5603/GP.a2018.0015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Huang D, Song L, Li Y, Xu Z, Li X, Li C. Posteromedial quadratus lumborum block versus transversus abdominal plane block for postoperative analgesia following laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Anesth. 2020;62:109716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.109716.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Stylianou M, Proschan M, Flournoy N. Estimating the probability of toxicity at the target dose following an up-and-down design. Stat Med. 2003;22(4):535–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ivanova A, Montazer-Haghighi A, Mohanty SG, Durham SD. Improved up-and-down designs for phase I trials. Stat Med. 2003;22(1):69–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Li X, Li J, Zhang P, et al. The minimum effective concentration (MEC90) of ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided caudal block in anorectal surgery. A dose finding study. PLoS One. 2021;16(9):e0257283. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257283.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Saranteas T, Finlayson RJ, Tran DQ. Dose-finding methodology for peripheral nerve blocks. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2014;39(6):550–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/AAP.0000000000000157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Grelet T, Besch G, Puyraveau M, et al. Minimum effective concentration of ropivacaine for 90% ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block, with or without intravenous dexamethasone. J Clin Anesth. 2021;75:110468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2021.110468.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rosenberg PH, Veering BT, Urmey WF. Maximum recommended doses of local anesthetics: a multifactorial concept. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2004;29(6):564–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rapm.2004.08.003.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Olapour A, Akhondzadeh R, Rashidi M, Gousheh M, Homayoon R. Comparing the Effect of Bupivacaine and Ropivacaine in Cesarean Delivery with Spinal Anesthesia. Anesth Pain Med. 2020;10(1):e94155. https://doi.org/10.5812/aapm.94155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rosenberg PH, Heinonen E. Differential sensitivity of a and C nerve fibres to long-acting amide local anaesthetics. Br J Anaesth. 1983;55(2):163–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/55.2.163.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bader AM, Datta S, Flanagan H, Covino BG. Comparison of bupivacaine- and ropivacaine-induced conduction blockade in the isolated rabbit vagus nerve. Anesth Analg. 1989;68(6):724–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ueshima H, Otake H, Lin JA. Ultrasound-guided Quadratus Lumborum block: an updated review of anatomy and techniques. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:2752876. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2752876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Elsharkawy H, Ahuja S, DeGrande S, Maheshwari K, Chan V. Subcostal approach to anterior quadratus lumborum block for pain control following open urological procedures. J Anesth. 2019;33(1):148–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-018-02605-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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://doi.org/10.1097/AAP.0000000000000349.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 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. Anesth Analg. 2017;125(1):303–12. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000001922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schwartz ES, Gebhart GF. Visceral pain. Curr top. Behav Neurosci. 2014;20:171–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2014_315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Farmer AD, Aziz Q. Mechanisms of visceral pain in health and functional gastrointestinal disorders. Scand J Pain. 2014;5(2):51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpain.2014.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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 [published correction appears in Reg Anesth pain med. 2018;43:111]. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2016;41(6):757–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/AAP.0000000000000495.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Kolacz M, Mieszkowski M, Janiak M, et al. Transversus abdominis plane block versus quadratus lumborum block type 2 for analgesia in renal transplantation: a randomised trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2020;37(9):773–89. https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000001193.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Adhikary SD, El-Boghdadly K, Nasralah Z, Sarwani N, Nixon AM, Chin KJ. A radiologic and anatomic assessment of injectate spread following transmuscular quadratus lumborum block in cadavers. Anaesthesia. 2017;72(1):73–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.13647.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Carline L, McLeod GA, Lamb C. A cadaver study comparing spread of dye and nerve involvement after three different quadratus lumborum blocks. Br J Anaesth. 2016;117(3):387–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aew224.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Balocco AL, López AM, Kesteloot C, et al. Quadratus lumborum block: an imaging study of three approaches. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2021;46(1):35–40. https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2020-101554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tamura T, Yokota S, Ito S, Shibata Y, Nishiwaki K. Local anesthetic spread into the paravertebral space with two types of quadratus lumborum blocks: a crossover volunteer study. J Anesth. 2019;33(1):26–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-018-2578-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. El-Boghdadly K, Desai N, Halpern S, et al. Quadratus lumborum block vs. transversus abdominis plane block for caesarean delivery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2021;76(3):393–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15160.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Russell IF. Levels of anaesthesia and intraoperative pain at caesarean section under regional block. Int J Obstet Anesth. 1995;4(2):71–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-289x(95)82995-m.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Dam M, Hansen CK, Poulsen TD, et al. Transmuscular quadratus lumborum block for percutaneous nephrolithotomy reduces opioid consumption and speeds ambulation and discharge from hospital: a single Centre randomised controlled trial. Br J Anaesth. 2019;123(2):e350–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2019.04.054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang Q, Li H, Wei S, et al. Dexmedetomidine added to Ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided erector Spinae plane block prolongs analgesia duration and reduces perioperative opioid consumption after thoracotomy: a randomized, controlled clinical study. Clin J Pain. 2021;38(1):8–14. Published 2021 Oct 12. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000000992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Mingan Yang who help us to do the statistical analyses.

Funding

Chengdu Municipal Health Commission No.2021137.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

RC and XL designed the work. RC, JY and LD performed the experiments. YC analyzed the results. RC and YC prepared the manuscript. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu Cui.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. All experimental protocols were approved by the Clinical Trial Ethics Committee of Chengdu Women’s and Children’s Central Hospital. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects.

Consent for publication

NA.

Competing interests

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

 Supplementary file 1. Sonographic model image of transmuscular quadratus lumborum (TQL) block. The needle tip (red arrow) was at the thoracolumbar fascia between the quadratus lumborum muscle and the erectus muscle, which was typeIIof QLB block.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cao, R., Li, X., Yang, J. et al. The minimum effective concentration (MEC90) of ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum block for analgesia after cesarean delivery: a dose finding study. BMC Anesthesiol 22, 410 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-022-01954-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-022-01954-5

Keywords