超声引导下菱形肌-肋间肌-低位前锯肌平面阻滞对腹腔镜肾切除术患者术后镇痛的影响

目的观察超声引导下菱形肌-肋间肌-低位前锯肌(RISS)平面阻滞对腹腔镜肾切除术患者术后镇痛的影响。方法择期行腹腔镜肾切除术患者40例,男19例,女21例,年龄25~65岁,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,随机分为单纯全麻组(C组)和全麻联合RISS平面阻滞组(T组),每组20例。T组在麻醉诱导前行超声引导下患侧RISS平面阻滞,注射0.25%罗哌卡因30 ml,C组不行RISS平面阻滞。两组患者手术后均行PCIA。观察术后1、6、12、24、48 h静息及活动时VAS疼痛评分以及舒芬太尼用量、镇痛泵有效按压次数,记录术后48 h内不良反应或并发症情况。结果 T组术后1、6、12、24 h的静息和活动时VAS疼痛评分明显低于C组(P<0.05),舒芬太尼用量和镇痛泵有效按压次数明显少于C组(P<0.05)。两组均未观察到气胸、局麻药中毒、血肿、严重低血压等并发症。结论诱导前RISS平面阻滞可有效提高腹腔镜肾切除术后静脉自控镇痛的效果。     

臂丛神经自控镇痛在断指再植术后的应用

目的 评价臂丛神经自控镇痛在断指再植术后的疗效和安全性。方法 将50例断指再植病人随机分成两组：静脉自控镇痛(PCIA)组(n=25)和臂丛神经自控镇痛(PCBA)组(n=25)。术后定时记录疼痛VAS评分、不良反应及再植指血管危象发生情况。结果 PCBA组镇痛效果明显优于PCIA组，两组不良反应发生情况无统计学意义，PCBA组血管危象发生率低于PCIA组。结论 PCBA较PCIA更适合用于断指再植术后镇痛。     

Patient-controlled interscalene analgesia with ropivacaine 0.2% versus patient-controlled intravenous analgesia after major shoulder surgery: effects on diaphragmatic and respiratory function

BACKGROUND: The authors compared the effects of patient-controlled interscalene analgesia (PCIA) with ropivacaine 0.2% and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIVA) with opioids on hemidiaphragmatic excursion and respiratory function after major shoulder surgery. METHODS: Thirty-five patients scheduled for elective major shoulder surgery were prospectively randomized to receive either PCIA or PCIVA. All patients received an interscalene block before surgery. In the PCIA group, a catheter was introduced between the anterior and middle scalene muscles. Six hours after the initial block, patients received for 48 h either a continuous infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine through the interscalene catheter at a rate of 5 ml/h plus a bolus dose of 3 or 4 ml with a lockout time of 20 min (PCIA group) or a continuous intravenous infusion of nicomorphine at a rate or 0.5 mg/h plus a bolus dose of 2 or 3 mg with a lockout time of 20 min (PCIVA group). Hemidiaphragmatic excursion and respiratory function were assessed with the patient in a 45 degrees semirecumbent position the day before the operation and 20 min (in the operating room), 24 h, and 48 h after the initial block by means of ultrasonography and spirometry, respectively. Pain relief was regularly assessed, side effects were noted, and patient satisfaction was rated 6 h after the end of the study. RESULTS: Hemidiaphragmatic excursion was similar in the two groups 20 min after interscalene block. Hemidiaphragmatic excursion was increased in the PCIA group on the nonoperated side 24 and 48 h after the interscalene block (P < 0.05). Pulmonary function was similar in the two groups at each time. Pain was better controlled in the PCIA group at 12 and 24 h (P < 0.05). The incidence of nausea and vomiting were 5.5% versus 60% for the PCIA and PCIVA groups, respectively (P < 0.05). Patient satisfaction was greater in the PCIA group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The use of PCIA or PCIVA techniques to provide analgesia after major shoulder surgery is associated with similar effects on respiratory function. In the PCIA group, hemidiaphragmatic excursion showed a significantly greater amplitude 24 and 48 h after the initial block on the nonoperated side. The PCIA technique provided better pain control, a lower incidence of side effects, and a higher degree of patient satisfaction.     

Patient-controlled interscalene analgesia with ropivacaine after major shoulder surgery: PCIA vs PCA

We have compared the efficacy of patient-controlled interscalene analgesia (PCIA) using ropivacaine with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) using nicomorphine in 60 patients (n = 30 in each group), in a prospective, randomized study. In both groups, all patients received interscalene block with 0.75% ropivacaine before induction of anaesthesia. Six hours after interscalene block, patients in group PCIA received continuous infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine at a rate of 5 ml h-1 with a bolus dose of 3 or 4 ml and a lockout time of 20 min; patients in group PCA received continuous infusion of nicomorphine 0.5 mg h-1 and a bolus dose of 2 or 3 mg with a lockout time of 20 min. Control of pain was significantly better from 12 to 48 h after operation (except at 42 h) in group PCIA. Nausea and pruritus occurred significantly more frequently in group PCA. Patient satisfaction was greater in group PCIA. We conclude that the use of 0.2% ropivacaine using PCIA was an efficient way of managing pain after major shoulder surgery and compared favourably with PCA nicomorphine in terms of pain relief, side effects and patient satisfaction.      

Patient-controlled Analgesia after Major Shoulder Surgery: Patient-controlled Interscalene Analgesia versus Patient-controlled Analgesia

Background: The authors compared patient-controlled interscalene analgesia (PCIA) with local anesthetics with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with opioids to manage postoperative pain after major shoulder surgery.

Methods: Forty patients scheduled for elective major shoulder surgery were prospectively randomized to receive either PCIA or PCA. Before surgery, all patients had an interscalene block. In the PCIA group, a catheter was introduced within the interscalene sheath. Six hours after the initial block, patients received for 48 h either a continuous infusion of 0.15% bupivacaine through the interscalene catheter at a rate of 5 ml/h plus a bolus of 3 or 4 ml with a lock-time of 20 min (group PCIA) or a continuous intravenous infusion of nicomorphine at a rate of 0.5 mg/h plus a bolus of 2 or 3 mg with a lock-time of 20 min (group PCA). Pain relief was regularly assessed using a visual analog scale, side effects were noted, and the patients were asked to rate their satisfaction at the end of the study.

Results: Pain relief was significantly better controlled in the PCIA group at t = 12 and 18 h (P < 0.05). Vomiting and pruritus were 0 versus 25% and 0 versus 25% for the PCIA and PCA groups, respectively (P < 0.05). Patient satisfaction was greater in the PCIA group (P < 0.05). Time of first bolus administration and paracetamol supplement were similar in both groups.     

Patient-controlled Interscalene Analgesia with Ropivacaine 0.2%Versus Patient-controlled Intravenous Analgesia after Major Shoulder Surgery: Effects on Diaphragmatic and Respiratory Function

Background: The authors compared the effects of patient-controlled interscalene analgesia (PCIA) with ropivacaine 0.2% and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIVA) with opioids on hemidiaphragmatic excursion and respiratory function after major shoulder surgery.

Methods: Thirty-five patients scheduled for elective major shoulder surgery were prospectively randomized to receive either PCIA or PCIVA. All patients received an interscalene block before surgery. In the PCIA group, a catheter was introduced between the anterior and middle scalene muscles. Six hours after the initial block, patients received for 48 h either a continuous infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine through the interscalene catheter at a rate of 5 ml/h plus a bolus dose of 3 or 4 ml with a lockout time of 20 min (PCIA group) or a continuous intravenous infusion of nicomorphine at a rate or 0.5 mg/h plus a bolus dose of 2 or 3 mg with a lockout time of 20 min (PCIVA group). Hemidiaphragmatic excursion and respiratory function were assessed with the patient in a 45[degrees] semirecumbent position the day before the operation and 20 min (in the operating room), 24 h, and 48 h after the initial block by means of ultrasonography and spirometry, respectively. Pain relief was regularly assessed, side effects were noted, and patient satisfaction was rated 6 h after the end of the study.

Results: Hemidiaphragmatic excursion was similar in the two groups 20 min after interscalene block. Hemidiaphragmatic excursion was increased in the PCIA group on the nonoperated side 24 and 48 h after the interscalene block (P < 0.05). Pulmonary function was similar in the two groups at each time. Pain was better controlled in the PCIA group at 12 and 24 h (P < 0.05). The incidence of nausea and vomiting were 5.5%versus 60% for the PCIA and PCIVA groups, respectively (P < 0.05). Patient satisfaction was greater in the PCIA group (P < 0.05).     

超声引导下竖脊肌平面阻滞和胸椎旁神经阻滞用于胸腔镜下肺叶切除术的比较

目的比较超声引导下竖脊肌平面阻滞(erector spinae plane block,ESPB)和胸椎旁神经阻滞(thoracic paravertebral nerve block,TPVB)应用于胸腔镜下肺叶切除术中血流动力学变化及术后联合PCIA的效果。方法选择行胸腔镜下肺叶切除术的患者60例,男38例,女22例,年龄18~64岁,BMI 18~24 kg/m^2,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,随机分为ESPB组(E组)和TPVB组(T组),每组30例。E组术前0.4%罗哌卡因25 ml行超声引导下单次ESPB,T组术前0.4%罗哌卡因25 ml行单次TPVB。罗哌卡因注入20 min后用冰块测定阻滞平面。术毕两组均给予PCIA至术后48 h。记录穿刺时间、深度;记录术中血管活性药使用情况、丙泊酚、瑞芬太尼用量;记录镇痛泵首次按压时间、有效按压次数、曲马多补救例数;记录胸闷、皮肤瘙痒等术后不良反应的发生情况。结果与T组比较,E组穿刺时间明显缩短(P<0.05),穿刺深度明显变浅(P<0.05),术中去氧肾上腺素使用率明显降低(P<0.05)。两组术中丙泊酚、瑞芬太尼用量、镇痛泵首次按压时间、有效按压次数、曲马多补救率及术后不良反应差异无统计学意义。结论超声引导下ESPB较TPVB操作更简单快捷,术中低血压发生率更低,术后两种阻滞联合PCIA均能为胸腔镜肺叶切术患者提供有效的镇痛。     

前列腺切除术后静脉自控镇痛与连续硬脊膜外腔镇痛治疗的疗效观察

目的：探讨静脉吗啡自控镇痛（PCIA）与连续硬脊膜外腔吗啡镇痛（CEIA）对前列腺切除术后镇痛效果和安全性。方法：60例前列腺切除术后患者随机分成PCIA组、CEIA组及对照组各20例。CEIA组持续性经硬脊膜外腔导管注入吗啡0．08mg/h;PICA组在术后经静脉持续给吗啡2．0mg/h,患者疼痛时自行追加吗啡1．0mg/次,锁定时间20min;对照组出现时疼痛时肌肉注射度冷丁50mg或其他解痉镇痛药。采用视觉模拟评分（VAS）法观察各组测道评分,记录各组患者膀胱痉挛次数及持续时间、停止冲洗时间等。结果：PCIA与CEIA两组与对照组相比具有镇痛效果显著、膀胱痉挛次数少、疼痛持续时间短的优点（P＜0．001）;PCIA与CEIA两组相比上述指标差异无显著性意义,但剂量及不良反应的差异有显著性意义（P＜0．05）;术后康复指标各组间差异无显著性意义。结论：吗啡PCIA及CEIA给药对前列腺切除术后患者镇痛效果良好,但对因血凝块引起的膀胱痉挛性疼痛均无效。从镇痛效果及不良反应等综合因素评估以CEIA为优。     

The scientific basis of patient-controlled analgesia

The current practice of patient-controlled analgesia has grown from empirical observations. Although several variants of patient-controlled analgesia, bolus doses, infusions, or combinations of both, have been suggested, a scientific basis for advocating one variant over the others has been lacking. Most systems have been based on the simplest system, bolus demand, although the use of a combined bolus and background infusion method has theoretical merit. Similarly, a scientific basis for setting the variables of patient-controlled analgesia, drug choice, incremental dose, maximum dose and lockout interval, also has been lacking. Settings for these variables may be rationalised post hoc on the basis of the physicochemical properties and global pharmacokinetic properties of the opioids used but knowledge of these properties has not helped in setting the variables a priori. Foremost, the drug choice should be based on therapeutic index. Knowledge of the regional kinetics of drug (influx and efflux) from brain may provide a more logical basis for setting the patient-controlled analgesia variables but such information can only come from animal experiments. More research is required if patient-controlled analgesia is to become anything but an empirical tool in the quest for improved analgesia in patients.     

Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia using remifentanil in the parturient

PURPOSE: To show the use of the short acting opioid remifentanil for labour analgesia when epidural analgesia is considered to be contraindicated. CLINICAL FEATURES: After Ethics Committee approval and informed consent, six patients (36-40 wk gestation), in whom epidural analgesia was considered contraindicated (women refusing regional analgesia, presenting with coagulation or platelet abnormalities or sepsis) benefited from patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) with remifentanil. The Abbott Lifecare patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump with remifentanil 50 microg x ml(-1) was set to deliver remifentanil continuous background infusion of 0.05 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) and 25 microg boluses with a five minutes lockout period. The PCIA was started when the parturients experienced regular painful contractions (cervical dilatation of at least 4 cm) and stopped just before delivery (cervix fully dilated). Maternal monitoring included non-invasive blood pressure measurements, heart rate, percutaneous arterial oxyhemoglobin saturation and respiratory rate. Percutaneous fetal heart rate was continuously monitored. All patients remained alert or sleepy but easily arousable and were satisfied with their analgesia. No particular side effects have been noticed. Apgar scores were between 6 and 10. CONCLUSION: Remifentanil PCIA combining low continuous background infusion and small bolus doses is an alternative when epidural analgesia in labour is contraindicated. Under careful anesthesia monitoring, the technique seems to be safe for both mother and baby, at least when delivery occurs at or near the normal term of pregnancy.     

连续股神经阻滞镇痛与静脉镇痛用于全膝关节置换术后快速康复的比较

目的比较连续股神经阻滞（continuous femoral nerveblock,CFNB）镇痛与静脉镇痛用于全膝关节置换术（total knee arthroplasty,TKA）后的快速康复效果。方法择期行单侧TKA患者60例,年龄45。78岁,ASA分级I、Ⅱ级,采用随机数字表法分为两组（每组30例）：患者自控神经阻滞镇痛（patient controlled nerve block analgesia,PCNA）组与患者自控静脉镇痛（patient controlled intravenous analgesia,PCIA）组。两组均采用蛛网膜下腔顿膜外腔联合麻醉。观察患者术后静息和运动时VAS评分、患者自控镇痛（patient-contmlled analgesia,PCA）泵按压次数及补救性镇痛药应用次数,观察术后患肢膝关节主动屈曲角度、术后血糖变化、术后平均住院日、并发症、副作用及满意度。结果术后6、12、24、48h静息状态下,两组VAS评分差异无统计学意义（P〉O．05）;与PCIA组比较,PCNA组术后24、48h被动运动时VAS评分降低[（3．6±0．5）分比（4．7±0．6）分、（3．4±0．5）分比（4．5±0．4）分]（P〈O．05）,PCA泵按压次数及肌内注射哌替啶次数减少（P〈0．05）。与PCIA组比较,PCNA组术后24、48h患肢膝关节主动屈曲角度增大（P〈0．05）,术后各时点血糖水平降低（P〈O．05）,深静脉血栓形成并发症及嗜睡、呼吸抑制等副作用减少（P〈O．05）;PCNA组术后满意度评分高于PCIA组[（9．6±1．4）分比（7．9±1．2）分]（P〈O．05o结论与静脉镇痛比较,CFNB用于TKA术后镇痛效果确切、并发症及副作用少、住院时间缩短、术后恢复快、总体满意度高,符合快速康复外科理念。     

IPACK联合收肌管阻滞用于膝关节手术镇痛研究进展

膝关节手术后常用的镇痛方式分为:患者自控硬膜外镇痛、患者自控静脉镇痛、关节周围注射、外周神经阻滞和多模式镇痛等,其中多模式镇痛应用较为广泛.随着医疗技术水平不断发展,超声引导下外周神经阻滞技术具有操作简单、镇痛效果确切、不良反应少等优势,在临床上使用的越来越普遍.近年来超声引导下腘动脉与关节囊间隙(IPACK)联合收肌...     

腹部手术后镇痛药需求量的影响因素

目的：分析腹部手术后患者自控静脉镇痛用药量的影响因素。方法选取2012年4月至2013年8月全麻下行腹部手术,术后接受48 h自控静脉镇痛的患者。记录患者性别、年龄、身高、体重、体重指数、手术方式、手术部位。术后静脉镇痛期间,记录用药剂量、静止和运动疼痛评分、镇静评分、心率、血压、脉搏氧饱和度以及不良反应。采用多元线性回归分析多个变量与用药量的关系。结果共有2829例（男性1611例,女性1218例）患者纳入分析。性别、年龄、体重和手术部位显著影响术后镇痛用药量。其中,体重影响最大且与术后镇痛用药量正相关,年龄与术后镇痛用药量负相关,女性用药量少于男性。身高、体重指数和手术方式不是术后镇痛用药量的决定因素。结论腹部手术患者实施术后自控静脉镇痛时要考虑体重、年龄、性别以及手术部位的影响,为患者制定专科化和个体化的镇痛方案。     

硬膜外给药与静脉给药对下腹部手术后止痛效果比较

目的探讨下腹部手术术后止痛的用药方法. 方法将2003年1月～12月的120例下腹手术病人随机分为2组:分别采用硬膜外用药自控疼痛治疗(n=60)和静脉用药自控疼痛治疗(n=60).在术后疼痛治疗的48或72 h内观察记录镇痛效果、用药量和副反应. 结果两组病人均达到良好的术后止痛效果.但静脉给药组镇痛药用量以及嗜睡、谵妄等不良反应明显多于硬膜外给药组(P<0.05). 结论下腹手术后止痛宜采用硬膜外给药法.     

TURP术后膀胱痉挛性疼痛三种镇痛方式的比较

目的比较三种镇痛方法对经尿道前列腺电切术（transurethral prostatic resection,TURP）后膀胱痉挛性疼痛的效果。方法TURP手术患者138例,随机分为三组：56例术后接受硬膜外自控镇痛（patient-controlled epidural analgesic,PCEA）者为PCEA组;47例行静脉自控镇痛（patient-controlledintravenous anesthesia,PCIA）者为PCIA组;35例术后接受吲哚美辛栓肛塞加吗啡肌注为常规镇痛组。比较三组手术当日及术后3 d膀胱痉挛的次数、疼痛评分及膀胱冲洗时间。结果PCEA组与PCIA组膀胱痉挛次数与VAS评分均显著低于常规对照组,膀胱冲洗时间亦短于常规镇痛组（P〈0.01）。结论TURP术后应用PCEA、PCIA预防膀胱痉挛效果好。     

Patient-controlled interscalene analgesia with ropivacaine 0.2% versus bupivacaine 0.15% after major open shoulder surgery: the effects on hand motor function

We compared the effects of patient-controlled interscalene analgesia with ropivacaine 0.2% and patient-controlled interscalene analgesia (PCIA) with bupivacaine 0.15% on hand grip strength after major open shoulder surgery. Sixty patients scheduled for elective major shoulder surgery were prospectively randomized to receive in a double-blinded fashion either ropivacaine or bupivacaine through an interscalene catheter. Before surgery, all patients received an interscalene block (ISB) with either 40 mL of 0.6% ropivacaine or 40 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine. Six h after ISB, the patients received a continuous infusion of either 0.2% ropivacaine or 0.15% bupivacaine for 48 h. In both groups, the PCIA infusion rate was 5 mL/h plus a bolus of 4 mL with a lockout time of 20 min. Strength in the hand was assessed preoperatively, 24 h, and 48 h after ISB and 6 h after stopping the infusion of local anesthetic. The presence of paresthesia in the fingers was checked. Pain relief was assessed using a visual analog scale; side effects were noted, and the patients rated their satisfaction 54 h after the block. A significant decrease of strength in the hand was observed in the Bupivacaine group 24, 48, and 54 h after ISB (P < 0.05). Paresthesia was more frequently reported in the Bupivacaine group for the second and third fingers 48 h after ISB (P < 0.05) and in the first three fingers 6 h after discontinuation of the local anesthetic infusion (P: < 0.05). The pain score was similar in the two groups at all times, and patient satisfaction was comparable between the two groups. We conclude that the use of the PCIA technique with ropivacaine 0.2% or bupivacaine 0.15% provides a similar pain relief after major shoulder surgery. However, ropivacaine 0.2% is associated with better preservation of strength in the hand and less paresthesia in the fingers. Implications: We compared the patient-controlled interscalene analgesia technique with ropivacaine 0.2% and bupivacaine 0.15% after major open shoulder surgery. For similar pain control ropivacaine is associated with better preservation of strength in the hand and less paresthesia in the fingers.     

全膝关节置换术后应用连续股神经阻滞镇痛和静脉自控镇痛的效果比较

目的比较连续股神经阻滞镇痛（CFNB）和静脉患者自控镇痛（PCIA）在全膝关节置换手术（TKA）围手术期的镇痛效果及术后1年膝关节功能评估的随访结果。方法选取2008年11月至2009年10月因膝关节骨关节炎行TKA的患者60例,数字随机分成2组,每组30例（n=30）。分别给予PCIA和CFNB作为术后镇痛方式。两组患者均采用腰麻联合硬膜外麻醉方式。在围手术期,采用视觉模拟（VAS）评分法观察患者的疼痛评分。记录吗啡累计用量,观察患肢肌力,初次下地时间及镇痛相关并发症等指标。在术后1年随访时,根据膝关节学会评分系统（KSS）对患者膝关节功能进行评估。结果在术后6、12、24、36、48h静息状态下,CFNB组的疼痛评分（VAS评分）均比PCIA组明显低（P〈0.05）。术后24h,48h进行膝关节持续被动活动（CPM）时累计吗啡用量均比PCIA组明显低（P〈0.05）。嗜睡、恶心呕吐等不良反应也低于PCIA组。术后1年,两组在膝关节功能评价方面无显著差异（P〉0.05）。结论 CFNB在TKA术中的初期镇痛效果优于PCIA。与PCIA相比,CFNB患者术后不良反应较少,膝关节功能恢复更好,患者的满意程度更高。为TKA术后镇痛策略中一种安全、实用和有效的方法。术后1年,两组患者在功能评估方面无统计学差异。     

多模式镇痛与静脉自控镇痛对类风湿关节炎全膝关节置换术围手术期镇痛效果的病例对照研究

目的 :比较多模式镇痛与静脉自控镇痛对类风湿关节炎患者全膝关节置换围手术期的镇痛效果。方法 :自2015年6月至2016年6月对40例类风湿关节炎患者行单侧全膝关节置换术治疗,分为2组。静脉自控镇痛组20例,男3例,女17例,平均年龄(59.6±2.3)岁;多模式镇痛组20例,男2例,女18例,平均年龄(56.3±1.3)岁。静脉自控镇痛组采用静脉镇痛泵控制性滴入舒芬太尼镇痛,多模式镇痛组采用连续股神经阻滞、膝关节局部注射及丁丙诺啡贴剂联合镇痛方案,比较两组患者全膝关节置换术后48 h内VAS评分及不良反应发生率,术后1周HSS评分,评价两种镇痛模式的优劣。结果:术后6、24 h,多模式镇痛组患者VAS评分低于静脉自控镇痛组;术后48 h在运动和静止状态下,多模式镇痛组患者VAS评分均低于静脉自控镇痛组。术后1周多模式镇痛组HSS评分高于静脉自控镇痛组,HSS评分中的功能、疼痛及活动度评分,多模式镇痛组优于静脉自控镇痛组,但肌力评分两组差异无统计学意义。结论:多模式镇痛效果好,不良反应少,是类风湿关节炎患者全膝关节置换围手术期理想的镇痛方案。     

Comparison of three solutions of ropivacaine/fentanyl for postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia

BACKGROUND: Ropivacaine, 0.2%, is a new local anesthetic approved for epidural analgesia. The addition of 4 microg/ml fentanyl improves analgesia from epidural ropivacaine. Use of a lower concentration of ropivacaine-fentanyl may further improve analgesia or decrease side effects. METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery were randomized in a double-blinded manner to receive one of three solutions: 0.2% ropivacaine-4 microg fentanyl 0.1% ropivacaine-2 microg fentanyl, or 0.05% ropivacaine-1 microg fentanyl for patient-controlled epidural analgesia after standardized combined epidural and general anesthesia. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia settings and adjustments for the three solutions were standardized to deliver equivalent drug doses. Pain scores (rest, cough, and ambulation), side effects (nausea, pruritus, sedation, motor block, hypotension, and orthostasis), and patient-controlled epidural analgesia consumption were measured for 48 h. RESULTS: All three solutions produced equivalent analgesia. Motor block was significantly more common (30 vs. 0%) and more intense with the 0.2% ropivacaine-4 microg fentanyl solution. Other side effects were equivalent between solutions and mild in severity. A significantly smaller volume of 0.2% ropivacaine-4 microg fentanyl solution was used, whereas the 0.1% ropivacaine-2 microg fentanyl group used a significantly greater amount of ropivacaine and fentanyl. CONCLUSIONS: Lesser concentrations of ropivacaine and fentanyl provide comparable analgesia with less motor block despite the use of similar amounts of ropivacaine and fentanyl. This finding suggests that concentration of local anesthetic solution at low doses is a primary determinant of motor block with patient-controlled epidural analgesia after lower abdominal surgery.     

A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing patient-controlled epidural with intravenous analgesia for pain relief in labor

In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we sought to determine whether patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) for labor affected the incidence of cesarean delivery when compared with patient-controlled IV opioid analgesia (PCIA). Healthy, term nulliparous patients in 4 Canadian institutions were randomly assigned to receive PCIA with fentanyl (n = 118) or PCEA with 0.08% bupivacaine and fentanyl 1.6 microg/mL (n = 124). There was no difference in the incidence of cesarean delivery-10.2% (12 of 118) versus 9.7% (12 of 124)-or instrumental vaginal delivery-21.2% (25 of 118) versus 29% (36 of 124)-between groups. The duration of the second stage of labor was increased in the PCEA group by a median of 23 min (P = 0.02). Fifty-one patients (43%) in the PCIA group received epidural analgesia: 39 (33%) because of inadequate pain relief and 12 (10%) to facilitate operative delivery. Patients in the PCIA group required more antiemetic therapy (17% versus 6.4%; P = 0.01) and had more sedation (39% versus 5%; P < 0.001). Maternal mean pain and satisfaction with analgesia scores were better in the PCEA group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.02, respectively). More neonates in the PCIA group required active resuscitation (52% versus 31%; P = 0.001) and naloxone (17% versus 3%; P < 0.001). These observations support the hypothesis that PCEA does not result in an increased incidence of obstetrical intervention compared with PCIA. PCEA provides superior analgesia and less maternal and neonatal sedation compared with PCIA.