In Reply:

We thank Dr. Grocott1  for his interest in our review article pertaining to transversus abdominis plane block.2  In his commentary, Dr. Grocott criticized “the lack of any specific mention of the end points that should be included in potential future trials.”1  Unfortunately, such statement is factually incorrect, as the review advocated for the inclusion of patient-centered outcomes (e.g., postoperative pain, breakthrough opioid consumption), functional outcomes (e.g., return of bowel function), adverse events (e.g., hypotension), as well as hard outcomes (e.g., length of stay) and cost analyses. Despite calling for “relevant” outcomes, Grocott has added no further suggestion to enhance our list.

The purpose of our article was to review the current literature relevant to transversus abdominis plane blocks. We concluded that the latter require further investigation with well-designed trials. Although good study design inherently demands a judicious selection of primary and secondary outcomes, it was not within the scope of the review to map out future trial design by providing an exhaustive list of said outcomes.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

References
1.
Grocott
HP
: .
Anesthesiology
.
2020
;
132
:
1598
9
2.
Tran
Q
,
Bravo
D
,
Leurcharusmee
P
,
Neal
JM
: .
Transversus abdominis plane block: A narrative review.
Anesthesiology
.
2019
;
131
:
1166
90