Search for a command to run...
We thank Jin et al. [1] and Kawashima et al. [2] for their constructive comments on our randomised controlled trial [3]. We like to address these comments and hope to clarify some points. Our study was powered to detect a two-point reduction on the numerical analogue scale, based on previous published data for fascial plane blocks in inguinal hernia surgery [4, 5]. We know that smaller differences may be clinically meaningful especially in day-case surgery and so a type 2 error might have occurred. We will address this topic in our next trial evaluating fascial plane blocks in abdominal surgery. The numerical analogue scale is an easy tool and internationally accepted standard for acute pain research and underpins the sample size calculations of comparable regional anaesthesia trials. Rescue analgesia, satisfaction and 30-day follow-up were also collected to complement this measure. Unfortunately, our cohort consisted exclusively of male patients due to the study period and the randomisation, but this reflects the epidemiology of inguinal hernia overrepresenting male patients with this disease [6]. We agree that there are gender differences in pain perception, and we stated this clearly as a limitation. Regarding the higher-risk population managed in day-case surgery units [1] we think that apart from underrepresented females in this study, the cohort includes patients with comorbidities, higher BMI and a range of ages. Broader studies including female patients are needed to enhance external validity. Randomisation was done after induction of anaesthesia as mentioned by Jin et al. This ensured that patients were blinded. The postoperative assessment was done by a doctor who was not part of the surgical team to handle a double-blinded study design. We agree that this might cause an intra-operative treatment bias, but this should be reduced as the procedure was done by different senior consultants. The randomisation approach will be changed within our next block trial. We agree with Jin et al. that the technique of the rectus sheath block targeted only the anterior branches. The analgesic effect of a transversus abdominis plane block is well studied for inguinal hernia repair and was therefore not the research question in this trial. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the specific effect of a rectus sheath block in inguinal hernia surgery, which we found to not add meaningful analgesia in this context. Even if the pre-emptive anaesthesia as used in this study protocol could mask a potential benefit of the abdominal wall block, it is part of our day-case surgery and was therefore part of the evaluation within this trial. Both groups received this pre-emptive regimen, so it might not influence the postoperative effect of the block. Apart from the numerical analogue scale 3 h after surgery, we agree that opioid-sparing endpoints or patient-reported outcome measurements may improve the research in future projects. Intra-operative analgesia was standardised with remifentanil. We agree that this parameter should have been evaluated in the trial as mentioned by Kawashima et al. [2]. As day-case patients are mostly discharged within 3 h of surgery, we used this as the primary outcome parameter. At all postoperative evaluations, we asked for consumption of pain killers and also evaluated postoperative complications. No patient received opioids after discharge. We apologise that this was not mentioned in the study. Including discharge readiness (for example) would indeed broaden the clinical perspective in our manuscript. Our trial showed that rectus sheath block did not add any anaesthetic benefit but, even so, it is feasible and safe. We agree with the authors of the correspondence that future studies should evaluate larger, more diverse cohorts and report additional clinically relevant data such as opioid consumption and discharge readiness.