Laparoscopically guided transversus abdominis plane block versus local wound analgesia in laparoscopic surgery for peritoneal endometriosis: study protocol for a prospective randomized controlled double-blinded LTAP-trial
This study compares the efficacy of laparoscopically guided transversus abdominis plane block versus local wound analgesia in reducing postoperative opioid consumption and pain for laparoscopic endometriosis surgery.
One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works
This study protocol describes a prospective, randomized, double-blinded single-center trial (LTAP-trial; NCT04735770) comparing laparoscopically guided transversus abdominis plane block (LTAP) versus local wound infiltration for postoperative analgesia in adults undergoing laparoscopic surgery for diagnosed or suspected peritoneal endometriosis. Participants will receive standardized total intravenous anesthesia and antiemetic prophylaxis, and the intervention will use levobupivacaine via LTAP with saline placebo at port sites, while the control will swap placebo and active levobupivacaine between LTAP points and trocar sites; outcomes include postoperative opioid consumption (with pain and endometriosis-related health questionnaires also collected preoperatively). The protocol notes key limitations inherent to a single-center design and that no biological specimens are collected, with the trial’s methods emphasizing effectiveness and safety rather than mechanistic endpoints. This paper is centrally about endometriosis — specifically, a randomized trial protocol testing whether LTAP can provide an opioid-sparing postoperative analgesia effect after laparoscopic peritoneal endometriosis surgery.
Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works
Abstract
Full text
23,451 characters
· extracted from
pmc-nxml
· 10 sections
· click to expand
Data
Trial
Oversight
Assignment
Discussion
Statistical
Introduction
Interventions
Administrative
Methods/Design
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works
Outcome instruments
Condition tags
MeSH descriptors
Citation neighborhood (no data yet)
We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.
Source provenance
- europepmc
- last seen: 2026-08-19T06:08:28.815611+00:00
- pubmed
- last seen: 2026-05-13T22:24:03.506079+00:00
- unpaywall
- last seen: 2026-05-14T19:30:52.867331+00:00
Courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine