Comparison of TAP block and epidural analgesia for postoperative analgesia after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy


  • O.O. Volkov Dnipro State Medical University, Ukraine
  • Lutsenko V.V. Medical Center “Medical Plaza”, O. Polia ave., 141A, Dnipro, 49000, Ukraine
  • M.O. Plis Medical Center “Medical Plaza”, O. Polia ave., 141A, Dnipro, 49000, Ukraine
  • M.V. Pavlenko Medical Center “Medical Plaza”, O. Polia ave., 141A, Dnipro, 49000, Ukraine
  • Krishtafor D.A. Dnipro State Medical University, Volodymyra Vernadskoho str., 9, Dnipro, 49044, Ukraine



robotic surgery, radical prostatectomy, TAP-block, epidural analgesia


Pain remains an important problem after radical prostatectomy, leading to discomfort and sometimes prolonged hospital stays. Despite the fact that laparoscopic procedures are less invasive surgical interventions, they can still be challenging in terms of postoperative pain, as both somatic and visceral pain pathways are involved. To alleviate pain and optimize improved recovery after laparoscopic prostatectomy, regional anesthesia techniques have been used to avoid or reduce the need for opioids. The aim of our study was to investigate the postoperative recovery of patients after laparoscopic robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, depending on the method of postoperative analgesia and in the context of the peculiarities of anesthesia in robotic surgery. To achieve this goal, the “Medical Plaza” Medical Center examined 49 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy using a robotic system. Patients were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 (n=25) – combined intraoperative anesthesia with epidural analgesia with 0.125% bupivacaine. Patients in group 2 (n=24) underwent TAP-block with 15 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine immediately after the last suture was placed on the skin both sides of the abdomen. Patients in the groups did not differ in age, height, body weight and physiological status (р>0.05) according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scale. When analyzing the statistical data it was found that the volume of the prostate did not differ in the study groups, as well as the duration of the operation and the amount of blood loss (р>0.05). Blood pressure and heart rate fluctuations were similar between the groups. The amount of muscle relaxants used had no statistical difference in the study groups (р>0.05). The amount of opiates used during anesthesia did not differ (р>0.05). Mobilization of patients in both groups occurred in 8 hours without statistical difference (p=0.094). A direct medium strength significant correlation was found between the method of analgesia and weakness in one of the lower limbs at the time of mobilization (r=0.69; p=0.039), a direct medium strength significant correlation was found between the size of the prostate and the time to tracheal extubation (r=0.39; p=0.041). So, the level of intraoperative blood loss did not depend on the variants of perioperative analgesia. Haemodynamics and heart rate did not decrease with the addition of intraoperative epidural analgesia. Intraoperative initiation of epidural analgesia with a low concentration of local anesthetic does not affect the rate of postoperative mobilization. Pain after robotic radical prostatectomy is moderate, but requires multimodal treatment for faster mobilization of the patient, adaptation to the existing urinary catheter. Both epidural analgesia and TAP block have shown sufficient safety profile and efficacy in postoperative pain management. After radical prostatectomy, the TAP-block is an effective method of analgesia, while not interfering with the timely full mobilization of the patient. Epidural analgesia has a high analgesic profile, but is associated with certain risks of catheter migration and interference with full mobilization of the patient.


Sun T, Wang Y, Liu Y, Wang Z. Perioperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies and randomized controlled trials. BMC Surg. 2022;22(1):427. doi:

Wang D, Dong T, Shao Y, et al. Laparoscopy versus open appendectomy for elderly patients, a meta-analysis and systematic review. BMC Surg. 2019;19:54. doi:

Kowalewski KF, Wieland VLS, Kriegmair MC, et al. Robotic-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Cystectomy-A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;16:S2405-4569(22)00285-1. doi:

Singh P, Gupta SK, Kumar M. A comparative study of open cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecys¬tectomy in patients with cholelithiasis. International Surgery Journal. 2018;5(1):253-6. doi:

Corrado G, Vizza E, Cela V, et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic hysterectomy in obese and extremely obese patients with endometrial cancer: A multi-institutional analysis. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2018;44(12):1935-41. doi:

Herling SF, Dreijer B, Wrist Lam G, Thomsen T, Møller AM. Total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhala-tional anaesthesia for adults undergoing transabdominal robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017;4:CD011387. doi:

Pathirana S, Kam P. Anaesthetic issues in robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2018;46(1):25-35. doi:

Bae J, Kim HC, Hong DM. Intrathecal morphine for postoperative pain control following robot-assisted prostatectomy: a prospective randomized trial. J Anesth. 2017;31:565-71. doi:

Cacciamani GE, Menestrina N, Pirozzi M, Tafuri A, Corsi P, De Marchi D, et al. Impact of com-bination of local anesthetic wounds infiltration and ultra-sound transversus abdominal plane block in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: periope-rative results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial. J Endourol. 2019;33:295-301. doi:

Shahait M, Lee DI. Application of TAP block in laparoscopic urological surgery: current status and future directions. Curr Urol Rep. 2019;20:20. doi:

Taha T, Sionov BV, Rosenberg P, Stein A, Tsivian M, Sidi A, et al. Pain control after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: comparison between unilateral transversus abdominis plane block and wound infiltration. Urol Int. 2019;103:19-24. doi:

Lemoine A, Witdouck A, Beloeil H, Bonnet F. On behalf of the Prospect Working Group of The European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy (ESRA). PROSPECT guidelines update for evidence-based pain management after prostatectomy for cancer. Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine. 2021;40(4):100922. doi:

Cruff J. Robotic surgical training at home: a low-fidelity simulation method. J Surg Educ. 2020;78(2):379-81. doi:

Lee JH, Kim CS, Kim H, et al. Preemptive visceral analgesic effect of thoracic paravertebral block on postoperative opioid consumption in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, assessor-blind study. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2022;21. doi:

Fayezizadeh M, Majumder A, Neupane R, et al. Efficacy of transversus abdominis plane block with liposomal bupivacaine during open abdominal wall reconstruction. Am J Surg. 2016;212(3):399-405. doi:

Maloney C, Kallis M, El-Shafy IA, et al. Ultra-sound-guided bilateral rectus sheath block vs. conventional local analgesia in single port laparoscopic appendectomy for children with nonperforated appendicitis. J Pediatr Surg. 2018;53(3):431-36. doi:

Liu R, Qin H, Wang M, et al. Transversus abdominis plane block with general anesthesia blunts the perioperative stress response in patients undergoing radical gastrectomy. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019;19(1):205. doi:

Xu YJ, Sun X, Jiang H, et al. Randomized clinical trial of continuous transversus abdominis plane block, epidural or patient-controlled analgesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg. 2020;107(2):e133-41. doi:

Sammons G, Ritchey W. Use of transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks for pain management in elderly surgical patients. AORN J. 2015;102(5):493-97. doi:

Thakre AB, Ramteke KA, Zanwar YN, Shrotey VR. Comparison of non-invasive (EsCCO) and invasive (Pac-CCO) method of cardiac output assessment in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. International Journal of Scientific Research. 2018;7(2):4-6.

Malik MB, Goyal A. Cardiac Exam. In: StatPearls [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Aug 01]. Available from:

Peacock JL, Peacock PL. Oxford Hadbook of Medical Statistics. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, UK; 2020. 640 p. doi:

Pawlik MT, Prasser C, Zeman F, et al. Pronounced haemodynamic changes during and after robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a prospective observational study. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e038045. doi:

Ono N, Nakahira J, Nakano S, Sawai T, Minami T. Changes in cardiac function and hemodynamics during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with steep head-down tilt: a prospective observational study. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):341. doi:

Luciani LG, Mattevi D, Mantovani W, et al. Ret-ropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Comparative Analysis of the Surgical Outcomes in a Single Regional Center. Curr Urol. 2017;11:36-41. doi:

Sharma G, Parsad S, Sharma A, et al. Anaesthesia concerns of steep Trendelenburg position in robotic pelvic surgeries: a critical review. Indian J Clinical Anaesthesia. 2021;8(1):7-10. doi:

Тan M, Law LSC, Gan TJ. Optimizing pain management to facilitate Enhanced Recovery After Surgery pathways. Can J Anesth. 2015;62:203-18. doi:

Joshi GP, Schug SA, Kehlet H. Procedure-specific pain management and outcome strategies. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology. 2014;28(2):191-201. doi:

Coughlin GD, Yaxley JW, Chambers SK, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(8):1051-60. doi:

Woldu SL, Weinberg AC, Bergman A, et al. Pain and Analgesic Use After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy. Journal of Endourology. 2014;28(5):544-8. doi:



How to Cite

Volkov O, V.V. L, Plis M, Pavlenko M, D.A. K. Comparison of TAP block and epidural analgesia for postoperative analgesia after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Med. perspekt. [Internet]. 2023Jun.30 [cited 2024Jul.12];28(2):76-84. Available from: