Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Transversus Abdominis Plane Block Reduces Morphine Consumption in the Early Postoperative Period following Microsurgical Abdominal Tissue Breast Reconstruction: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Trial

Wheble, George A. C. M.R.C.S.; Tan, Eric K. H. M.R.C.S.; Turner, Matthew M.A., F.R.C.A.; Durrant, Charles A. T. M.A., F.R.C.S.(Plast.); Heppell, Simon F.R.C.S.Ed.(Plast.)

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: May 2015 - Volume 135 - Issue 5 - p 919e–920e
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001184

Department of Burns, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury, United Kingdom

Department of Plastic Surgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom

Department of Anesthesia, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, United Kingdom

Mountbatten Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, United Kingdom

Correspondence to Dr. Wheble, Department of Burns, Plastic, and Reconstructive Surgery, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Mandeville Road, Aylesbury HP21 8AL, United Kingdom,

Back to Top | Article Outline


We were delighted to read the article by Dr. Zhong et al. in this month’s edition of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. A randomized controlled trial looking at the efficacy of transversus abdominis plane blocks used for microsurgical abdominal tissue breast reconstruction has been long-awaited and we read their results with interest.

Zhong et al.1 report their randomized controlled trial comparing a saline control with use of bupivacaine delivered to the transversus abdominis plane by an indwelling catheter placed at the time of surgery. Their technique involves making a 3-cm incision in the triangle of Petit and placing a catheter in the transversus abdominis plane under direct vision.2 They reported significantly reduced use of morphine on postoperative day 1 in the group receiving bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane block.

Hivelin et al.3 described a modified technique for intraoperative, surgeon-delivered bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane block under ultrasound guidance. They advocate use of an ultrasound probe applied directly onto the abdominal fascia before closure of the abdominal defect. The absence of overlying abdominal fat allows for clearer delineation of the layers of abdominal musculature, and allows for a shallower angle for needle entry and constant visualization of the blunt needle tip, thus decreasing risk of perforation of the peritoneum and underlying structures. In their prospective cohort study, they showed significantly less interval and cumulative morphine use in the first 48 hours postoperatively and had no complications.

In the recently published United Kingdom series, Wheble et al.,4 using a similar surgeon-delivered, ultrasound-guided technique as that described by Nash et al.,5 showed similar results with significantly lower morphine use postoperatively, and significantly shorter hospital stay and fewer episodes of postoperative nausea and vomiting. They found this technique to be safe, quick, and cost-effective.

Although both United Kingdom and French articles were cohort studies, we feel that the use of a single-dose transversus abdominis plane block compared with catheter infusion warrants further investigation. Continuous infusion by means of intraoperatively placed transversus abdominis plane catheters has been shown to decrease postoperative opioid use; however, we wonder whether single-dose, ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block confers a similar benefit and is more cost-effective and with fewer potential complications.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The authors have no commercial associations or financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this communication. No funding was received for this submission.

George A. C. Wheble, M.R.C.S.

Department of Burns, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Stoke Mandeville Hospital

Aylesbury, United Kingdom

Eric K. H. Tan, M.R.C.S.

Department of Plastic Surgery

John Radcliffe Hospital

Oxford, United Kingdom

Matthew Turner, M.A., F.R.C.A.

Department of Anesthesia

Queen Alexandra Hospital

Charles A. T. Durrant, M.A., F.R.C.S.(Plast.)

Simon Heppell, F.R.C.S.Ed.(Plast.)

Mountbatten Department of Plastic and

Reconstructive Surgery

Queen Alexandra Hospital

Portsmouth, United Kingdom

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Zhong T, Ojha M, Bagher S, et al. Transversus abdominis plane block reduces morphine consumption in the early postoperative period following microsurgical abdominal tissue breast reconstruction: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:870–878
2. Zhong T, Wong KW, Cheng H, et al. Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) catheters inserted under direct vision in the donor site following free DIEP and MS-TRAM breast reconstruction: A prospective cohort study of 45 patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66:329–336
3. Hivelin M, Wyniecki A, Plaud B, Marty J, Lantieri L.. Ultrasound-guided bilateral transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia after breast reconstruction by DIEP flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:44–55
4. Wheble GA, Tan EK, Turner M, Durrant CA, Heppell S.. Surgeon-administered, intra-operative transversus abdominis plane block in autologous breast reconstruction: A UK hospital experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66:1665–1670
5. Nash H, Khoda B, Heppell S, Turner M.. TAP blocks in breast reconstructions using abdominal wall tissue. Anaesthesia. 2011;66:750–751
Back to Top | Article Outline


Letters to the Editor, discussing material recently published in the Journal, are welcome. They will have the best chance of acceptance if they are received within 8 weeks of an article’s publication. Letters to the Editor may be published with a response from the authors of the article being discussed. Discussions beyond the initial letter and response will not be published. Letters submitted pertaining to published Discussions of articles will not be printed. Letters to the Editor are not usually peer reviewed, but the Journal may invite replies from the authors of the original publication. All Letters are published at the discretion of the Editor.

Letters submitted should pose a specific question that clarifies a point that either was not made in the article or was unclear, and therefore a response from the corresponding author of the article is requested.

Authors will be listed in the order in which they appear in the submission. Letters should be submitted electronically via PRS’ enkwell, at

We reserve the right to edit Letters to meet requirements of space and format. Any financial interests relevant to the content of the correspondence must be disclosed. Submission of a Letter constitutes permission for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and its licensees and asignees to publish it in the Journal and in any other form or medium.

The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in the Letters to the Editor represent the personal opinions of the individual writers and not those of the publisher, the Editorial Board, or the sponsors of the Journal. Any stated views, opinions, and conclusions do not reflect the policy of any of the sponsoring organizations or of the institutions with which the writer is affiliated, and the publisher, the Editorial Board, and the sponsoring organizations assume no responsibility for the content of such correspondence.

The Journal requests that individuals submit no more than five (5) letters to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in a calendar year.

©2015American Society of Plastic Surgeons