Table 2.
Characteristics of studies included in meta-analysis
| Author | Year | Country | Score | Treatment | TAPB_n (M/F) | TAPB_age# (years) | QLB_n (M/F) | QLB_age# (years) | Quality | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baytar | 2019 | Turkey | 4 | TAPB vs QLB | 53 (11/42) | 48.12 ± 12.42 | 54 (15/39) | 46.42 ± 16.57 | HQ | b f g |
| Yousef | 2018 | Egypt | 5 | TAPB vs QLB | 30 (0/30) | 50.70 ± 6.8 | 30 (0/30) | 56.5 ± 6.97 | HQ | a b c d e f |
| Kumar | 2018 | India | 4 | TAPB vs QLB | 35 (15/20) | 38.34 ± 11.59 | 35 (15/19) | 39.20 ± 11.64 | HQ | a b d f |
| Öksüz | 2017 | Turkey | 3 | TAPB vs QLB | 25 (21/4) | 3.02 ± 1.82 | 25 (21/4) | 3.13 ± 0.20 | LQ | e f |
| Blanco | 2016 | Arab | 3 | TAPB vs QLB | 38 (0/38) | NA | 38 (0/38) | NA | LQ | a |
| Verma | 2019 | India | 6 | TAPB vs QLB | 30 (0/30) | 28 ± 3 | 30 (0/30) | 30 ± 3 | HQ | b d f |
| Ipek | 2019 | Turkey | 3 | TAPB vs QLB | 29 (19/10) | 4.16 ± 2.55 | 35 (28/7) | 3.89 ± 3.26 | LQ | e f g |
| Shan | 2019 | China | 3 | TAPB vs QLB | 30 (0/30) | 30 ± 3 | 30 (0/30) | 29 ± 6 | LQ | c f |
| Deng | 2019 | China | 6 | TAPB vs QLB | 34 (12/22) | 53.5 ± 10.6 | 34 (14/20) | 51.1 ± 13.8 | HQ | b c f |
| Fu | 2019 | China | 4 | TAPB vs QLB | 30 (NA) | 71.8 ± 5.8 | 30 (NA) | 72.2 ± 6.9 | HQ | b f |
| Han | 2017 | China | 4 | TAPB vs QLB | 38 (24/14) | 27.8 ± 3.9 | 39 (20/19) | 26.3 ± 3.2 | HQ | b c f |
| He | 2018 | China | 2 | TAPB vs QLB | 36 (20/16) | 67.3 ± 2.3 | 36 (19/17) | 67.7 ± 2.1 | LQ | e f |
| Li G | 2018 | China | 5 | TAPB vs QLB | 40 (0/40) | 31 ± 4 | 40 (0/40) | 30 ± 5 | HQ | b c f |
| Li N | 2019 | China | 3 | TAPB vs QLB | 30 (0/30) | 42.10 ± 5.26 | 30 (0/30) | 41.07 ± 4.75 | LQ | b e f |
| Ma | 2019 | China | 3 | TAPB vs QLB | 30 (17/13) | 55. 2 ± 4. 4 | 30 (16/14) | 53.1 ± 4.6 | LQ | e |
| Ren | 2018 | China | 3 | TAPB vs QLB | 82 (44/38) | 45.7 ± 15.2 | 78 (40/38) | 46.3 ± 15.1 | LQ | b c |
| Xia | 2018 | China | 4 | TAPB vs QLB | 30 (15/15) | 48 ± 8 | 30 (12/18) | 46 ± 11 | HQ | f |
| Yang | 2019 | China | 3 | TAPB vs QLB | 30 (0/30) | NA | 30 (0/30) | NA | LQ | a b |
| Yang | 2019 | China | 5 | TAPB vs QLB | 30 (0/30) | 38.5 ± 14.8 | 30 (0/30) | 43.9 ± 15.04 | HQ | b c e f |
| Ye | 2019 | China | 4 | TAPB vs QLB | 28 (12/16) | 48.9 ± 2.1 | 30 (14/16) | 50.3 ± 2.8 | HQ | c f |
| Zhu | 2019 | China | 3 | TAPB vs QLB | 39 (20/19) | 68.8 ± 3.4 | 39 (18/21) | 69.1 ± 3.2 | LQ | e f |
| Zhu | 2018 | China | 3 | TAPB vs QLB | 30 (0/30) | 52 ± 6 | 30 (0/30) | 51 ± 7 | LQ | b e f |
#: mean ± standard deviation
TAPB transversus abdominis plane block, QLB quadratus lumborum block, VAS visual analog scale, HQ high-quality, LQ low-quality, NA unavailable
a: morphine consumption; b: VAS score at 24 h postoperatively; c: fentanyl consumption; d: duration of postoperative analgesia; e: the number of patients requiring analgesia postoperatively; f: operative time; g: duration of anesthesia