Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Jul 27, 2026; 18(7): 120890
Published online Jul 27, 2026. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.120890
Published online Jul 27, 2026. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.120890
Table 1 Comparison of baseline characteristics between groups, mean ± SD/n (%)
| Variable | ESPB group (n = 91) | TAPB group (n = 92) | t/χ2/Z value | P value |
| Age (years) | 42.3 ± 12.6 | 41.8 ± 13.1 | 0.263 | 0.793 |
| Sex | 0.132 | 0.716 | ||
| Male | 49 (53.8) | 52 (56.5) | ||
| Female | 42 (46.2) | 40 (43.5) | ||
| BMI (kg/m²) | 23.8 ± 3.2 | 24.1 ± 3.4 | -0.61 | 0.543 |
| ASA classification | -0.426 | 0.67 | ||
| Class I | 34 (37.4) | 32 (34.8) | ||
| Class II | 48 (52.7) | 52 (56.5) | ||
| Class III | 9 (9.9) | 8 (8.7) | ||
| Appendicitis type | 0.059 | 0.808 | ||
| Acute appendicitis | 78 (85.7) | 80 (87.0) | ||
| Chronic appendicitis | 13 (14.3) | 12 (13.0) | ||
| Pathological classification | 0.155 | 0.925 | ||
| Simple | 31 (34.1) | 29 (31.5) | ||
| Suppurative | 47 (51.6) | 50 (54.3) | ||
| Gangrenous | 13 (14.3) | 13 (14.2) | ||
| Nature of surgery | 0.011 | 0.916 | ||
| Elective | 26 (28.6) | 27 (29.3) | ||
| Emergency | 65 (71.4) | 65 (70.7) | ||
| Operative time (minutes) | 58.4 ± 15.2 | 56.9 ± 14.8 | 0.68 | 0.497 |
| Pneumoperitoneum duration (minutes) | 45.6 ± 12.3 | 44.2 ± 11.9 | 0.787 | 0.432 |
| Intraoperative blood loss (mL) | 15.0 (10.0, 25.0) | 15.0 (10.0, 20.0) | -0.524 | 0.6 |
| Intraoperative remifentanil consumption (μg) | 312.5 ± 68.4 | 305.8 ± 71.2 | 0.651 | 0.516 |
Table 2 Comparison of postoperative visceral pain Visual Analog Scale scores between groups at different time points (scores), mean ± SD
| Time point | State | ESPB group (n = 91) | TAPB group (n = 92) | t value | P value |
| 2 hours postoperatively | Rest | 2.1 ± 0.8 | 3.2 ± 0.9 | -8.741 | < 0.001 |
| Activity | 2.8 ± 0.9 | 4.0 ± 1.0 | -8.648 | < 0.001 | |
| 6 hours postoperatively | Rest | 2.3 ± 0.7 | 3.1 ± 0.8 | -7.275 | < 0.001 |
| Activity | 3.0 ± 0.8 | 3.9 ± 0.9 | -7.243 | < 0.001 | |
| 12 hours postoperatively | Rest | 1.9 ± 0.6 | 2.4 ± 0.7 | -5.237 | < 0.001 |
| Activity | 2.5 ± 0.7 | 3.1 ± 0.8 | -5.479 | < 0.001 | |
| 24 hours postoperatively | Rest | 1.4 ± 0.5 | 1.5 ± 0.6 | -1.242 | 0.216 |
| Activity | 1.9 ± 0.6 | 2.0 ± 0.7 | -1.055 | 0.293 | |
| 48 hours postoperatively | Rest | 0.8 ± 0.4 | 0.9 ± 0.5 | -1.517 | 0.131 |
| Activity | 1.2 ± 0.5 | 1.3 ± 0.5 | -1.38 | 0.169 |
Table 3 Comparison of postoperative somatic pain Visual Analog Scale scores between groups at different time points (scores), mean ± SD
| Time point | State | ESPB group (n = 91) | TAPB group (n = 92) | t value | P value |
| 2 hours postoperatively | Rest | 2.4 ± 0.8 | 2.3 ± 0.9 | 0.798 | 0.426 |
| Activity | 3.5 ± 1.0 | 3.4 ± 1.1 | 0.649 | 0.517 | |
| 6 hours postoperatively | Rest | 2.2 ± 0.7 | 2.1 ± 0.8 | 0.905 | 0.367 |
| Activity | 3.2 ± 0.9 | 3.1 ± 0.9 | 0.754 | 0.452 | |
| 12 hours postoperatively | Rest | 1.8 ± 0.6 | 1.7 ± 0.7 | 1.054 | 0.293 |
| Activity | 2.6 ± 0.8 | 2.5 ± 0.8 | 0.853 | 0.395 | |
| 24 hours postoperatively | Rest | 1.3 ± 0.5 | 1.2 ± 0.5 | 1.369 | 0.173 |
| Activity | 1.9 ± 0.6 | 1.8 ± 0.6 | 1.133 | 0.259 | |
| 48 hours postoperatively | Rest | 0.7 ± 0.4 | 0.7 ± 0.4 | 0 | 1 |
| Activity | 1.1 ± 0.5 | 1.0 ± 0.5 | 1.351 | 0.178 |
Table 4 Comparison of postoperative rescue analgesia between groups
| Variable | ESPB group (n = 91) | TAPB group (n = 92) | χ2/Z value | P value |
| Rescue analgesia, n (%) | 12 (13.2) | 24 (26.1) | 4.768 | 0.029 |
| Tramadol consumption (mg) | 0 (0, 0) | 0 (0, 100) | -2.518 | 0.012 |
Table 5 Comparison of postoperative recovery quality indicators between groups, mean ± SD
| Variable | ESPB group (n = 91) | TAPB group (n = 92) | t/Z value | P value |
| Time to first ambulation (hours) | 12.4 ± 3.8 | 13.1 ± 4.2 | -1.185 | 0.238 |
| Time to first flatus (hours) | 19.8 ± 5.4 | 20.5 ± 5.8 | -0.854 | 0.394 |
| Postoperative hospital stay (days) | 2.0 (2.0, 3.0) | 2.0 (2.0, 3.0) | -0.876 | 0.381 |
Table 6 Comparison of postoperative nausea and vomiting between groups, n (%)
| Variable | ESPB group (n = 91) | TAPB group (n = 92) | Z/χ2 value | P value |
| PONV grade | -0.892 | 0.372 | ||
| Grade 0 | 62 (68.1) | 58 (63.0) | ||
| Grade 1 | 18 (19.8) | 20 (21.7) | ||
| Grade 2 | 8 (8.8) | 10 (10.9) | ||
| Grade 3 | 3 (3.3) | 4 (4.3) | ||
| PONV incidence | 29 (31.9) | 34 (37.0) | 0.516 | 0.473 |
| Antiemetic use | 11 (12.1) | 14 (15.2) | 0.38 | 0.538 |
Table 7 Comparison of patient satisfaction with analgesia between groups
| Variable | ESPB group (n = 91) | TAPB group (n = 92) | Z value | P value |
| Satisfaction score | -2.486 | 0.013 | ||
| 1 point | 1 (1.1) | 2 (2.2) | ||
| 2 points | 3 (3.3) | 8 (8.7) | ||
| 3 points | 12 (13.2) | 18 (19.6) | ||
| 4 points | 48 (52.7) | 46 (50.0) |
- Citation: Cheng H, Liu C, Li MY. Erector spinae plane block vs transversus abdominis plane block for visceral and somatic pain after laparoscopic appendectomy. World J Gastrointest Surg 2026; 18(7): 120890
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v18/i7/120890.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.120890