Epidural levobupivacaine 0.1% or ropivacaine 0.1% combined with morphine provides comparable analgesia after abdominal surgery

Ropivacaine appears attractive for epidural analgesia because it produces less motor block than racemic bupivacaine. The potential benefits of levobupivacaine with regard to motor blockade require further investigations. In this study, we compared the efficacy, dose requirements, side effects, and motor block observed with epidural levobupivacaine and ropivacaine when given in combination with small-dose morphine for 60 h after major abdominal surgery. Postoperatively, 50 patients were randomly allocated, in a double-blinded manner, to patient-controlled epidural analgesia with the same settings and without basal infusion, using 0.1% levobupivacaine or 0.1% ropivacaine. Both were combined with an epidural infusion of 0.1 mg/h morphine. Pain scores, side effects, motor block, and local anesthetic consumption were measured for 60 h. Pain scores measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale were approximately 20 mm at rest and 40 mm during mobilization in both groups. Bromage scores were 1 for all patients after the fourth postoperative hour. Consumption of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine were similar: 344 +/- 178 mg levobupivacaine versus 347 +/- 199 mg ropivacaine 48 h postoperatively. On postoperative day 2, 19 patients in the ropivacaine group versus 12 in the levobupivacaine group were able to ambulate (P < 0.05). No difference was noted concerning incidence of side effects. We conclude that when used as patient-controlled epidural analgesia and combined with small-dose epidural morphine, 0.1% levobupivacaine and 0.1% ropivacaine produce comparable postoperative analgesia with a similar incidence of side effects. IMPLICATIONS: Small concentrations (0.1%) of epidural levobupivacaine and ropivacaine combined with morphine (0.1 mg/h) produce comparable analgesia and have similar side effects for similar dose requirements.     

The efficacy and safety of three concentrations of levobupivacaine administered as a continuous epidural infusion in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery.

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of three concentrations of levobupivacaine infused epidurally as analgesia for patients undergoing orthopedic procedures. Patients undergoing elective hip or knee joint replacement were enrolled in the study (n = 105). Sensory blockade was established preoperatively with 10-15 mL of 0.75% levobupivacaine. Patients were then randomized to receive 0.0625%, 0.125%, or 0.25% levobupivacaine as a continuous epidural infusion at 6 mL/h for 24 h. IV morphine patient-controlled analgesia was given as rescue analgesia, and time to first request for analgesia and total dose of morphine consumed were recorded. Sensory blockade, motor blockade, visual analog scale pain score, and cardiovascular variables were also recorded at regular intervals postoperatively. Ninety-one patients were included in the primary intent-to-treat analysis. Total normalized dose of morphine, number of patient-controlled analgesia requests, and overall postoperative visual analog scale pain scores were significantly lower for the 0.25% group compared with the other two groups, and the time to first request for rescue analgesia was longer. There was no significant difference between the 0.125% and 0.25% groups in terms of maximum motor blockade achieved and time to minimal motor blockade. Safety data were equivalent among the three groups. We conclude that levobupivacaine as a continuous epidural infusion provided adequate postoperative analgesia and that the 0.25% concentration provided significantly longer analgesia than 0.125% or 0.0625% levobupivacaine without any significant increase in detectable motor blockade relative to the 0.125% group. IMPLICATIONS: Postoperative epidural infusion of levobupivacaine can provide safe and effective analgesia for patients having hip or knee joint replacement. Of the three concentrations we infused at a constant rate, 0.25% provided significantly better pain relief.     

Randomized, double-blind, phase III, controlled trial comparing levobupivacaine 0.25%, ropivacaine 0.25% and bupivacaine 0.25% by the caudal route in children

Background. The rationale for replacing racemic bupivacainewith the s-enantiomers levobupivacaine and ropivacaine is toprovide a wider margin of safety with the same analgesic efficacyand less postoperative motor block. In a randomized, double-blind,phase III, controlled trial we compared the caudal administrationof levobupivacaine 0.25% and ropivacaine 0.25% with bupivacaine0.25% in children. Methods. Ninety-nine ASA I–II children less than 10 yrold scheduled for elective sub-umbilical surgery were randomizedto receive caudal block with bupivacaine 0.25%, ropivacaine0.25% or levobupivacaine 0.25%. The primary outcome of the studywas the clinical efficacy of the caudal block during the operation.Secondary outcome measures were analgesic onset time, pain reliefafter the operation and residual motor blockade. Results. The proportion of children with effective analgesiaduring the operation was similar among groups. There were nosignificant differences in the analgesic onset time of the caudalblock. Bupivacaine produced a significant incidence of residualmotor block compared with levobupivacaine or ropivacaine atwake-up (P<0.01). There were no significant differences inthe number of patients receiving rescue analgesia after surgery.However, analgesic block lasted significantly longer in patientsreceiving bupivacaine (P=0.03). Conclusion. During sub-umbilical surgery, caudal levobupivacaine,ropivacaine and bupivacaine provided comparable analgesic efficacy.Bupivacaine produced a higher incidence of residual motor blockadeand a longer analgesic block than ropivacaine and levobupivacaine.      

Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia in aortic surgery: role of levobupivacaine

AIM: Perioperative pain management in patients undergoing surgery is an essential target in order to improve intraoperative outcome and reduce postoperative complications occurrence. The combination of a local anesthetic with an opiate for epidural administration can ensure both analgesic effect (opiate) and neuroendocrine protection (local anesthetic). Levobupivacaine, S(-)-enantiomer form of bupivacaine, produces a sensitive-motor blockade similar to the racemate, with less cardiotoxicity; also ropivacaine is not cardiotoxic, but it has less anesthetic efficacy than levobupivacaine; both anesthetics could be administered through the epidural catheter in order to ensure adequate analgesia without any hemodynamic effects. Aim of our study was to evaluate a thoracic epidural analgesia for abdominal aortic surgery. METHODS: Through a randomized mono-blind study, involving 28 patients undergoing aortic surgery, we performed a clinical evaluation of 2 different perioperative thoracic epidural analgesic techniques; 2 different local anesthetics (levobupivacaine versus ropivacaine) in combination with the same opiate (fentanyl) were compared. RESULTS: The results obtained show that both techniques ensure an excellent perioperative analgesia without any cardiotoxicity, with only moderate adverse effects due to opiate; the absence of postoperative mortality (within 30 days from operation) and the modest perioperative morbidity underline the qualities of this analgesic technique. CONCLUSION: The combination of fentanyl with levobupivacaine or ropivacaine for use in thoracic epidural administration ensured both analgesic and neuroendocrine effect; significative differences between the 2 local anesthetics cannot be demonstrated, even if levobupivacaine, which presents a higher anesthetic efficacy, requires lower dosages.     

A comparison of levobupivacaine 0.125%, fentanyl 4 microg/mL, or their combination for patient-controlled epidural analgesia after major orthopedic surgery

Levobupivacaine, the isolated S(-) isomer of bupivacaine, is less cardiotoxic than racemic bupivacaine in animal studies. We studied the effectiveness of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with either levobupivacaine 0.125% or fentanyl 4 microg/mL alone, or a combination of levobupivacaine and fentanyl in 65 patients after total joint arthroplasty in a prospective, random, double-blinded fashion. Intraoperatively, all patients received 20 mL of 0.75% levobupivacaine. Study medication was infused at an initial rate of 4 mL/h, with additional medication available on patient demand (2 mL/10 min). The combination of levobupivacaine and fentanyl produced better analgesia (longer time to first PCEA request; P = 0.007 combination versus fentanyl and P = 0.006 combination versus levobupivacaine) than either drug alone. Patients in the levobupivacaine groups had appreciable sensory blockade to pinprick with minimal motor impairment. Resting and dynamic visual analog scale pain scores were lower in the combination group than in the plain fentanyl group at 6 (P = 0.022 and 0.036) and 12 h (P = 0.002 and 0.001). The 24-h overall patient- and investigator-rated visual analog scale pain scores were also lower in the combination group (resting P = 0.007, dynamic P = 0.005). There was no significant difference among the groups in the incidence of postoperative nausea (26.2%), pruritus (9.2%), hypotension (23.1%), or sedation (0%). We conclude that the analgesic effects of levobupivacaine 0.125% and fentanyl (4 microg/mL) are additive and beneficial for the management of orthopedic surgical pain by the PCEA method. Patients in this study began demand-dosing later, reported lower pain scores, and had no greater risk of adverse events than those who were given either levobupivacaine or fentanyl alone. IMPLICATIONS: We demonstrated a significant additive effect of the combination of levobupivacaine (0.125%) and fentanyl (4 microg/mL), compared with either drug alone, when using patient-controlled epidural analgesia in patients after total joint arthroplasty.     

Postoperative epidural morphine for postpartum tubal ligation analgesia

Women undergoing postoperative postpartum tubal ligation (PPTL) often experience considerable pain. We hypothesized that epidural morphine, as part of a multi-modal analgesic regimen, would decrease postoperative pain and the need for systemic analgesia after PPTL. In a double-blinded study, patients were randomized to receive epidural saline or morphine 2 mg, 3 mg, or 4 mg after epidural anesthesia for PPTL. Postoperatively, ibuprofen 600 mg was administered every 6 h and patients could request acetaminophen 325 mg/hydrocodone 10 mg. The primary outcome variable was time to first request for supplemental analgesia. Verbal rating scores for pain and the incidence and severity of side effects were recorded for 24 h. Morphine group subjects requested supplemental analgesia later and received fewer doses compared with the saline group subjects. Peak cramping and incisional verbal rating scores for pain and the area under the verbal rating scores for pain x time curve for cramping pain were less after epidural morphine compared with saline, but there were no differences among morphine groups. Nausea, vomiting, and pruritus occurred more often in all morphine groups and subjects who received morphine 4 mg required treatment for these side effects more frequently than the saline or morphine 2 mg groups. In conclusion, epidural morphine 2 mg as part of a multi-modal analgesic regimen improved analgesia and decreased the need for supplemental analgesics after PPTL. The need to treat side effects with morphine 2 mg was not increased compared to a regimen of oral acetaminophen/opioid/nonsteroidal antiinflammatory analgesics.     

Postoperative epidural analgesia after total knee arthroplasty with sufentanil 1 microg/ml combined with ropivacaine 0.2%, ropivacaine 0.125%, or levobupivacaine 0.125%: a randomized, double-blind comparison

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Total knee replacement is associated with severe postoperative pain that, if treated insufficiently, interferes with early rehabilitation. The purpose of the present study is to compare the efficacy of ropivacaine (0.2% and 0.125%) and levobupivacaine (0.125%), all in combination with sufentanil 1 microg/mL with regard to postoperative pain relief and absence of motor block in a patient-controlled epidural analgesia setting. METHODS: The study design was randomized and double-blind. Sixty-three patients scheduled for total knee replacement under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive ropivacaine 0.2%/sufentanil 1 microg/mL (group 1), ropivacaine 0.125%/sufentanil 1 microg/mL (group 2), or levobupivacaine 0.125%/sufentanil 1 microg/mL (group 3) for postoperative epidural pain relief. Primary endpoints were numerical rating scores for pain and patient satisfaction, motor block scores, time to first demand of the patient-controlled epidural analgesia device and average hourly consumption of local anesthetic and sufentanil. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the 3 groups regarding numerical rating scores for pain, patient satisfaction, and motor block scores at any of the time intervals; time to first demand and average hourly sufentanil consumption were similar. Patients in group 1 used significantly more local anesthetic than patients in groups 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 solutions provided adequate analgesia and minimal motor block. The higher concentration of ropivacaine 0.2% was associated with a higher consumption of local anesthetic and did not result in a decrease in the consumption of sufentanil. Under the conditions of this study, patient-controlled epidural analgesia consumption of the epidural mixture was predominantly determined by sufentanil.     

The addition of epidural morphine to ropivacaine improves epidural analgesia after lower abdominal surgery

PURPOSE: To assess the analgesic and side effects of the continuous epidural infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine combined with morphine compared to both drugs alone. METHODS: In this study, both observers and patients were blinded to patient group assignment. Sixty patients scheduled to undergo lower abdominal surgery were enrolled. Patients were randomized to one of three postoperative treatment groups: 1) combination group (a combination of 0.2% ropivacaine and 0.003% morphine); 2) morphine group (0.003% morphine); or 3) ropivacaine group (0.2% ropivacaine). Postoperatively, all solutions were administered epidurally at a rate of 6 mL.hr(-1) for 24 hr. Patients were given iv flurbiprofen as a supplemental analgesic on demand. RESULTS: The combination group showed lower visual analogue scale scores than those of patients receiving either drug alone, both at rest and on coughing. The combination group showed a slight motor block at two hours after the continuous epidural infusion, while the ropivacaine and morphine groups did not show any motor block. The incidence of itching was significantly increased in the morphine and combination groups, compared to the ropivacaine group. There was no significant difference between the numbers of patients with nausea in the three groups. No hypotension or respiratory complications were observed in the three groups. CONCLUSION: The combination of epidural 0.2% ropivacaine and 0.003% morphine has more effective analgesic effects than either of the drugs alone for postoperative pain relief after lower abdominal surgery.     

The efficacy and safety of epidural infusions of levobupivacaine with and without clonidine for postoperative pain relief in patients undergoing total hip replacement

We assessed the efficacy and tolerability of epidural infusions of levobupivacaine, levobupivacaine plus clonidine, and clonidine for postoperative analgesia in 86 patients undergoing total hip replacement. For each group, an epidural cannula was inserted before surgery and 15 mL of 0.75% plain levobupivacaine was administered. Three hours later, an epidural infusion (6 mL/h) of levobupivacaine 0.125% (L), levobupivacaine 0.125% plus clonidine 8.3 microg/mL (LC) or clonidine alone (8.3 microg/mL) (C) was initiated. Morphine consumption was recorded for the following 24 h as were visual analog pain scores and the degree of sensory and motor blockade. The mean (median) morphine consumption was lowest in the combination group (LC),14 (7) mg; higher in the clonidine group (C), 23 (21) mg; and highest in the levobupivacaine group (L), 37 (36) mg (P = 0.022). The median times until the first request for analgesia which were 2. 9, 5.9, and 12.5 h for Groups L, C, and LC, respectively (P < or = 0. 01). There were no statistical differences among the groups regarding the maximum degree of postoperative motor blockade. On average, the systolic blood pressure in the two clonidine groups was slightly lower than in those from the levobupivacaine group. We conclude that the epidural administration of a combination of levobupivacaine plus clonidine is well tolerated and gives better analgesia than either drug used alone. Implications: In patients undergoing total hip replacement, the addition of the alpha(2)-adrenergic agonist clonidine to epidural infusions of levobupivacaine significantly improved postoperative analgesia.     

The morphine sparing effect of ketorolac tromethamine

A randomised, double-blind study of patients after upper abdominal surgery was undertaken to assess the analgesic efficacy of ketorolac tromethamine, a new, parenteral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agent. Postoperatively, patients received a 24-hour intramuscular infusion of either saline (n = 20), ketorolac 1.5 mg/hour (n = 21) or ketorolac 3.0 mg/hour (n = 20). Cumulative morphine requirements were measured using a patient-controlled analgesia system which delivered intravenous increments of morphine on demand. Pain was assessed by visual analogue scores. Arterial blood gas analyses were performed pre-operatively and on the first postoperative day. Patients who received low and high dose ketorolac infusions required less morphine than the control group (p less than 0.05 and p = 0.06, respectively). This was associated with significantly lower pain scores. Patients who received the higher ketorolac dose had significantly less postoperative increase in arterial carbon dioxide tensions than controls. This study suggests that ketorolac tromethamine is a useful analgesic drug with significant morphine sparing properties.     

Intraarticular patient-controlled regional anesthesia after arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: ropivacaine/morphine/ketorolac versus ropivacaine/morphine

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is associated with moderate to severe postoperative pain. We compared the intraarticular analgesic effects of ropivacaine and morphine with or without ketorolac and the need for rescue IV morphine at rest and during movement in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction during spinal anesthesia. Thirty-nine patients receiving intraarticular patient-controlled regional analgesia with a 10-mL bolus and a 60-min lockout interval were randomized into 3 groups: the RM group received 0.25% ropivacaine and morphine 0.2 mg/mL; the RMK group received 0.25% ropivacaine, morphine 0.2 mg/mL and ketorolac 1 mg/mL; the P group received saline. Analgesic mixtures were prepared in 100-mL bags and coded. If needed, rescue morphine 2 mg was self-administered IV with 10-min lockout intervals. Pain scores and patient satisfaction were assessed at rest and during movement. There were no significant differences among the groups in pain scores and patient satisfaction. Daily morphine consumption was significantly smaller in the RMK group (8 +/- 8 mg) compared with the RM group (23 +/- 20 mg; P = 0.002) and in both groups compared with control (46 +/- 21 mg; P < 0.001). We conclude that intraarticular patient-controlled regional analgesia provides effective pain relief after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The combination of intraarticular ropivacaine, morphine, and ketorolac was superior to control or to a combination of ropivacaine and morphine. IMPLICATIONS: This study showed the feasibility and efficacy of intraarticular patient-controlled regional analgesia technique for pain relief after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The combination of intraarticular ropivacaine, morphine, and ketorolac was superior to control or to a combination of ropivacaine and morphine.     

Caudal anesthesia for minor pediatric surgery: a prospective randomized comparison of ropivacaine 0.2% vs levobupivacaine 0.2%

BACKGROUND: Previous published data comparing ropivacaine 0.2% with levobupivacaine 0.25% have suggested that ropivacaine might be associated with less early postoperative motor blockade compared with levobupivacaine. The aim of the present study was to further investigate this issue comparing equal concentrations (0.2%) of ropivacaine and levobupivacaine in children undergoing minor subumbilical surgery. METHODS: Following induction of a standardized anesthetic, patients (1-7 years) were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive a caudal block with either ropivacaine 0.2% (group R, n=30) or levobupivacaine 0.2% (group L, n=30), total volume 1 ml.kg-1. Motor blockade (modified Bromage scale; primary end-point) and analgesia [Children and Infants Postoperative Pain Scale (CHIPPS) score] were assessed at predetermined time points during the first 24-postoperative hours. RESULTS: Motor blockade was only registered during the first postoperative hour with no significant differences between the groups (group R n=5, group L n=8). Postoperative CHIPPS scores were almost identical in both groups with only seven and six patients requiring supplemental analgesia (CHIPPS score>or=4) in the R and L groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A 0.2% concentrations of ropivacaine or levobupivacaine are clinically very similar with regard to postoperative analgesia and unwanted postoperative motor blockade in children undergoing minor subumbilical surgery.     

Efficacy of ropivacaine, bupivacaine, and levobupivacaine for labor epidural analgesia

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare analgesic efficacy and intensity of motor block with continuous infusions of ropivacaine, bupivacaine, and levobupivacaine in combination with fentanyl for labor epidural analgesia. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. SETTING: Labor and delivery suite at Magee Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA. PATIENTS: 162 ASA physical status I and II, full-term, primiparous women. INTERVENTIONS: All patients received epidural labor analgesia. Epidural medication consisted of an initial bolus of 8 mL local anesthetic with fentanyl (100 microg) followed by an infusion at 12 mL/h of local anesthetic with 2 microg/mL fentanyl. Patients were allocated to one of three groups, as follows: group 1 received bolus and infusion of bupivacaine 0.125%, group 2 received bolus and infusion of levobupivacaine 0.125%, and group 3 received a bolus of ropivacaine 0.2% and infusion of ropivacaine 0.1%. MEASUREMENTS: Maternal vital signs, pain visual analog scale (VAS) score, sensory levels, and motor block (Bromage score) were recorded every hour. Duration of first and second stage of labor and mode of delivery were also recorded. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in pain VAS or Bromage motor scores among the three groups of patients at any of the measured time intervals. The time to achieve T10 sensory level and patient comfort was shorter in the ropivacaine (9.35 +/- 4.96 min) and levobupivacaine (9.56 +/- 4.71 min) groups than the bupivacaine (11.89 +/- 7.76 min) group, although this difference did not reach a statistically significant level (P = 0.06). The second stage was significantly shorter in the bupivacaine group, lasting 81.27 +/- 63.3 min, compared with the ropivacaine group (121.69 +/- 86.5 min) and the levobupivacaine (115.5 +/- 83.6 minutes) group (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: There are no significant differences in pain VAS and Bromage scores between 0.1% ropivacaine, 0.125% bupivacaine, and 0.1% levobupivacaine given for labor epidural analgesia.     

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of epidural ketamine combined with morphine for postoperative analgesia after major upper abdominal surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of the combination of epidural ketamine and morphine compared with epidural morphine alone for postoperative pain relief following major upper abdominal surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. SETTING: Tertiary care referral and teaching hospital. PATIENTS: 46 ASA physical status I and II patients who underwent major upper abdominal procedures. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to one of the two treatment groups: patients in Group 1 received epidural morphine 50 microg/kg whereas patients in Group 2 received epidural ketamine 1 mg/kg combined with 50 microg/kg of morphine postoperatively. MEASUREMENTS: A blinded observer using a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain assessment followed up patients for 48 hours postoperatively. Top-up dose of epidural morphine was provided when VAS was higher than 4. Analgesic requirements and side effects were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Only 40 patients completed the study. There were no differences between the two groups with respect to age, gender, weight, duration, or type of surgical procedure or intraoperative opioid requirements. Onset of analgesia was faster (p < 0.001) in Group 2 (11 min) than in Group 1 patients (25 min). The time for first requirement of analgesia was significantly (p < 0.01) longer (19.8 +/- 9.8 hours) in Group 2 patients than Group 1 (12.8 +/- 6.2 hours). Total number of supplemental doses of epidural morphine required in the first 48 hours postoperatively was also significantly less (p < 0.005) in Group 2 compared to Group 1. Patients in Group 2 had higher sedation scores than Group I patients for the first 2 hours postoperatively. None of the patients in either group developed hallucinations or respiratory depression. Other side effects such as pruritus, nausea, and vomiting were also similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of epidural ketamine 1 mg/kg to morphine 50 microg/kg improved analgesia after major upper abdominal surgery without increasing side effects.     

Use of levobupivacaine for the treatment of postoperative pain after thoracotomies

Continuous thoracic epidural analgesia with an opiod-local anaesthetic mixture is the most appropriate strategy to control postoperative pain in thoracic surgery. Levobupivacaine, the pure S(-) enantiomer of racemic bupivacaine, has less cardiotoxic and neurotoxic potential but similar anaesthetic properties of its native agent. There are no studies in thoracic surgery that had established the minimal efficient concentration of this anaesthetic when used with an epidural opioid. The advantages of administering opioids in addition to local anaesthetics in the epidural space are the possibility to decrease dose and consequently side-effects of each drug and to exploit the documented synergy between these different categories of drugs in producing segmental epidural analgesia. In our departmental study (unpublished data), 2 different concentration of levobupivacaine (Group A: 0.125% and Group B: 0.0625%) combined with sufentanil (1 mg/mL) were administered in continuous epidural post-thoracotomy infusion to investigate quality of analgesia, motor block and side-effects. An intravenous PCA system has been used in the postoperative period to evaluate rescue morphine consumption. Preliminary results showed that patients of each group reported similar VAS at rest although a better pain control during cough resulted in group A. Patients receiving levobupivacaine at 0.125% presented low incidence of nausea, vomiting and pruritus probably because of the smaller amount of rescue morphine administered. At the concentration of 0.125% epidural levobupivacaine in combination with sufentanil allowed to obtain a good pain control with no adverse effects and motor block at all.     

Preoperative infiltration of the surgical area enhances postoperative analgesia of a combined low–dose epidural bupivacaine and morphine regimen after upper abdominal surgery

In a randomized, blinded trial we assessed the value of adding preoperative infiltration of the surgical area with bupivacaine to a low dose epidural regimen for postoperative pain treatment. Forty–nine patients scheduled for major upper abdominal surgery during combined thoracic epidural (bupivacaine + morphine) and general anaesthesia were studied. Postoperative analgesia was epidural bupivacaine 10 mg hr^-1 + morphine 0.2 mg hr^-1 for 72 h. The patients randomly received preoperative infiltration of the surgical area with bupivacaine 0.25%, 40 ml (group I); or no infiltration (group II). Pain was evaluated at rest, during cough and during mobilization six and eight h after start of surgery, and at 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. on the following days until 72 h after start of surgery. The sensory level of analgesia was evaluated by pin prick. We found no difference between the two groups during rest and cough. However, during mobilization group I had lower pain scores compared to group II ( P < 0.05). There was a significant reduction in the need for supplemental intramuscular morphine in the treatment group compared to the control group ( P <0.05). Thus an enhanced analgesic effect was demonstrated by adding preoperative infiltration of the surgical area with local anaesthetic to a low dose epidural bupivacaine/morphine regimen after upper abdominal surgery.     

Parasternal block and local anesthetic infiltration with levobupivacaine after cardiac surgery with desflurane: the effect on postoperative pain, pulmonary function, and tracheal extubation times

Early tracheal extubation has become common after cardiac surgery. Anesthetic techniques designed to achieve this goal can make immediate postoperative analgesia challenging. We conducted this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study to investigate the effect of a parasternal block on postoperative analgesia, respiratory function, and extubation times. We enrolled 20 patients having cardiac surgery via median sternotomy; 17 patients completed the study. A de-sflurane-based, small-dose opioid anesthetic was used. Before sternal wire placement, the surgeons performed the parasternal block and local anesthetic infiltration of sternotomy and tube sites with either 54 mL of saline placebo or 54 mL of 0.25% levobupivacaine with 1:400,000 epinephrine. Effects on pain and respiratory function were studied over 24 h. Patients in the levobupivacaine group used significantly less morphine in the first 4 h after surgery (20.8 +/- 6.2 mg versus 33.2 +/- 10.9 mg in the placebo group; P=0.013); they also had better oxygenation at the time of extubation. Four of nine in the placebo group needed rescue pain medication, versus none of eight in the levobupivacaine group (P=0.08). Peak serum levobupivacaine concentrations were below potentially toxic levels in all patients (0.64 +/- 0.43 microg/mL; range, 0.24-1.64 microg/mL). Parasternal block and local anesthetic infiltration of the sternotomy wound and mediastinal tube sites with levobupivacaine can be a useful analgesic adjunct for patients who are expected to undergo early tracheal extubation after cardiac surgery.     

Levobupivacaine 0.25% compared with ropivacaine 0.25% by the caudal route in children

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Levobupivacaine is the most recently introduced local anaesthetic into clinical practice. In a randomized double-blinded study, the onset, intraoperative tolerance, postoperative analgesic effect, motor blockade and any adverse reactions produced by levobupivacaine were compared with ropivacaine. METHODS: Sixty children, ASA I-II, 2-6 yr old, undergoing elective minor surgery, received a single caudal injection of 1 mL kg(-1) of either levobupivacaine 0.25% or ropivacaine 0.25%. Caudal blocks were performed after induction of inhalation general anaesthesia using sevoflurane; anaesthesia was maintained via a laryngeal mask airway using a mixture of sevoflurane, oxygen and air. RESULTS: Onset time, intraoperative tolerance, postoperative analgesic effect and motor blockade were comparable between the two groups. The mean onset of the block was 8.2 +/- 2.2 min for levobupivacaine and 8.5 +/- 3.0 min for ropivacaine (P = 0.66). Additional analgesics during operation were not required in any of the children. No significant difference was found for mean time to requirement of additional analgesia with rectal acetaminophen (paracetamol) (302 +/- 29 min for the levobupivacaine group and 230 +/- 38 min for the ropivacaine group (P = 0.32)). During the first 4 h after placement of caudal block, the pain assessment score (according to the Children Hospital Eastern Ontario Pain Scale) was comparable for the two groups. No motor block was observed in any group on awakening, nor during the observation period. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that levobupivacaine 0.25% 1 mL kg(-1) provides caudal block of comparable onset and duration, as produced by the same volume and concentration of ropivacaine.     

Low-dose 0.25% spinal levobupivacaine with epidural extension for cesarean section: comparison with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine

INTRODUCTION: When low doses of local anesthetic are used in combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section, an epidural catheter can be used to enhance a possibly incomplete block or insufficient dose. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of spinal 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with fentanyl (20 microg) at a conventional high dose of 0.07 mg cm(-1) (group 1) vs 0.25% levobupivacaine at a low dose of 7.6 mg with fentanyl (20 microg) and epidural volume extension with 6 mL of saline through an epidural catheter (group 2). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized clinical trial enrolling patients scheduled for elective cesarean section. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were studied (31 in each group). Characteristics in the groups were comparable at baseline and the maximum level of sensory block achieved was sufficient for all but 1 patient in group 2 who required general anesthesia. The bupivacaine dose in group 1 ranged from 10.5 to 12 mg. The motor block and duration was less intense in group 2 (P<0.0001) and patients in that group could be transferred out of the postanesthetic care unit earlier. CONCLUSIONS: The use of low doses of levobupivacaine with an opiate in combination with volume extension through an epidural catheter in the context of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia is a safe, effective technique that may allow the doses and motor block to be reduced when hyperbaric levobupivacaine is administered, without adverse events for patients.     

Femoral nerve block with 0.25% or 0.5% bupivacaine improves postoperative analgesia following outpatient arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament repair

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Femoral nerve block is effective in reducing postoperative pain after inpatient knee surgery. We studied its efficacy compared with standard analgesia following outpatient anterior cruciate ligament repair, including the duration of analgesia and the effect of different concentrations of bupivacaine. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval and informed consent, we prospectively randomized patients to receive, in a blinded fashion, either a sham block, a femoral nerve block with 25 mL 0.25% bupivacaine, or with 25 mL 0.5% bupivacaine after anterior cruciate ligament repair under epidural anesthesia. Verbal analog pain scores were evaluated by a blinded observer at 20 and 40 minutes after injection. Patients with pain >4 (out of 10) were assessed for the presence of a block and offered a supplemental block if no anesthesia was present at either evaluation. By prospective agreement, any study group with 6 failures was excluded from further recruitment. After discharge, patients recorded pain scores and analgesic consumption in a diary, and estimated the time at which they perceived that analgesia and sensory block from the femoral nerve block resolved, based on an increase in pain, sensation, and strength in the leg. RESULTS: In the sham block group, 6 of 12 patients reported inadequate analgesia in the postanesthesia care unit (4 at 20 minutes, 2 at 40 minutes; greater than other groups, P <.003) and were excluded from further study. Patients with sham blocks had higher pain scores 20 minutes after the block, and requested intravenous analgesia more often. Bupivacaine 0.25% and 0.5% provided 23.2 +/- 7 and 25.7 +/- 11 hours of analgesia, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Femoral nerve block with 0.25% bupivacaine contributes significantly to multimodal postoperative analgesia in the immediate postoperative period following outpatient anterior cruciate ligament repair. Both doses of bupivacaine studied provided analgesia for the first night after surgery.