硬膜穿孔后硬膜外镇痛在分娩镇痛中的应用

目的探讨硬膜穿孔后硬膜外镇痛在分娩镇痛中应用的有效性和安全性。方法接受分娩镇痛的单胎足月初产妇180例,随机均分为自控硬膜外镇痛组(P组)、腰-硬联合镇痛组(S组)和硬膜穿孔复合硬膜外镇痛组(D组)。P组于硬膜外穿刺置管成功后,注入0.125%罗派卡因+0.4μg/ml舒芬太尼的混合药液5ml作为首量,继而已同一混合液行自控硬膜外镇痛,背景量7ml/h,单次2ml,时间锁定15min。S组在腰-硬联合操作成功后,在蛛网膜下腔注入舒芬太尼3μg,继而行自控硬膜外镇痛,配方同P组。D组在穿刺成功后(以发现脑脊液回流为准),作硬膜外置管,注入0.0625%罗派卡因+0.2μg/ml舒芬太尼10ml作为首量,继而已同一混合液行自控硬膜外镇痛,背景量14ml/h、单次4ml、时间锁定15min。于镇痛前(T0)、镇痛后1min(T1)、5min(T2)、10min(T3)、60min(T4)行VAS评分;记录各组镇痛首次PCA时间、PCA次数、舒芬太尼用量、镇痛不良反应、产程及分娩方式。结果与T0时比较,T2～T4时三组VAS评分显著降低(P<0.05)。与D组和S组比较,T2、T3时P组VAS评分明显升高;P组首次PCA时间明显缩短、PCA次数和舒芬太尼用量明显增加(P<0.05)。与D组比较,P组第一产程活跃期明显延长、器械助产、产前发热例数明显增加(P<0.05);S组剖宫产、产前发热、胎心减慢、瘙痒例数明显增加(P<0.05)。结论硬膜穿孔后硬膜外镇痛效果确切、不良反应更少,是一种安全有效的分娩镇痛方法。     

Ropivacaine 2 mg/mL vs. bupivacaine 1.25 mg/mL with sufentanil using patient-controlled epidural analgesia in labour

BACKGROUND: In recent studies, minimum local analgesic concentrations have been defined as 0.93 mg/mL for bupivacaine and 1.56 mg/mL for ropivacaine for epidural analgesia for the first stage of labour, resulting in an analgesic potency ratio of 1 : 0.6. In the current study we compared ropivacaine and bupivacaine in a PCEA system (combined with sufentanil) taking this potency ratio into account but administering drug doses providing sufficient analgesia for all stages of labour. METHODS: In a prospective, double-blinded study 114 parturients were randomised to receive either ropivacaine 2 mg/mL with sufentanil 0.75 microg/mL or bupivacaine 1.25 mg/with sufentanil 0.75 microg/mL. After epidural catheter placement, PCEA was available with boluses of 4 mL, a lock-out time of 20 min and no basal infusion rate. We evaluated pain intensity during contractions, sensory and motor function, duration of labour, mode of delivery and neonatal outcome. Consumption of local anaesthetic and opioid drugs and PCEA system variables were recorded. RESULTS: Mean total consumption as well as mean hourly drug consumption was significantly increased in the ropivacaine-sufentanil group. No differences in analgesic quality, sensory or motor blocking potencies or neonatal outcome variables between groups were detected. Frequency of instrumental deliveries was significantly increased in the ropivacaine-sufentanil group. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the findings of previously published studies postulating ropivacaine to be 40-50% less potent for labour epidural analgesia compared to bupivacaine. However, we observed an increased frequency of instrumental deliveries with ropivacaine. To evaluate the clinical relevance of these findings, further investigations are warranted.     

Comparison of epidural,continuous femoral block and intraarticular analgesia after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare three locoregional techniques of pain management after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: Sixty ASA I-II subjects were enrolled after obtaining written informed consent. Patients were randomly allocated to three groups of 20 subjects. The first group (EPI) received epidural ropivacaine 0.2% plus sufentanil 0.2 micro g ml-1, at 5 ml h-1. Patients in the second group (CFB) were given a continuous infusion of the same analgesic mixture through a femoral catheter. The third group (IA) received a continuous intraarticular infusion of ropivacaine 0.2% plus sufentanil 0.2 micro g ml-1, at 5 ml h-1. All subjects were allowed PCA boluses of 5 ml of local anesthetic. Analgesia was assessed for 36 h after the end of surgery by means of a visual analog scale (VAS) and a verbal scale (VS), as well as the number of PCA boluses administered and the amount of supplementary i.v. ketorolac, if given. RESULTS: The VAS and VS scores were significantly higher in group IA during the 24 h following surgery. Ketorolac requirement was higher in group IA throughout the postoperative observation. Adverse effects were similar in all groups except for urinary retention, which was significantly more frequent in group EPI. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that either epidural or continuous femoral nerve block provide adequate pain relief in patients who undergo ACLR, whereas intraarticular analgesia seems unable to cope satisfactorily with the analgesic requirements of this surgical procedure.     

Epidural analgesia during labor: intermittent bolus or patient controlled administration?

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare efficacy and side effects produced by two techniques of epidural analgesia during labor: intermittent bolus and patient-controlled epidural analgesia. METHODS: Eighty parturients were enrolled in this study: forty received intermittent bolus analgesia (first bolus: 20 mg of ropivacaine 0.1% + 10 gamma of sufentanil, next bolus: 10 mg of ropivacaine 0.1% during the first 4 hours, and then 10 mg of ropivacaine 0.1% + 2.5 gamma of sufentanil each time they complained of pain), and forty parturients received PCEA (starting with a bolus of 20 mg ropivacaine 0.1% + 10 gamma sufentanil, followed by administration with a pump programmed to deliver a continuous background infusion of ropivacaine 0,1% + 0.25 gamma/ml of sufentanil at 5 ml/h and 5 ml patient-triggered boluses with a 15 min lock-out interval; insufficient analgesia was treated by extra boluses of the same ropivacaine solution). In each group the efficacy of the analgesia (verbal numerical pain scores, amount of local anesthetics consumption), labor duration, side effects and patient satisfaction have been studied. RESULTS: There were no differences between the two different epidural techniques. CONCLUSIONS: This regimen of PCEA proves a viable and safe alternative for epidural analgesia during labor.     

Epidural combination of ropivacaine with sufentanil for postoperative analgesia after total knee replacement: a pilot study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We assessed the analgesic efficacy of postoperative epidural infusions of ropivacaine 0.1 and 0.2% combined with sufentanil 1 microg mL(-1) in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. METHODS: Twenty-two ASA I-III patients undergoing elective total-knee replacement were included. Lumbar epidural blockade using ropivacaine 0.75% was combined with either propofol sedation or general anaesthesia for surgery. After surgery, the epidural infusion was commenced. Eleven patients in each group received either an epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% with 1 microg mL(-1) sufentanil (Group 1) or ropivacaine 0.2% with 1 microg mL(-1) sufentanil (Group 2) at a rate of 5-9 mL h(-1). All patients had access to intravenous pirinatrimide (piritramide) via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device. RESULTS: Motor block was negligible for the study duration in both groups. There was no significant difference with the 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, with the consumption of rescue analgesia or with patient satisfaction. Patients in Group 1 experienced significantly less nausea (P < 0.05) than those in Group 2. Both treatment regimens provided effective postoperative analgesia with only a minimal use of supplemental opioid PCA. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the use of ropivacaine 0.1% with 1 microg mL(-1) sufentanil for postoperative analgesia after total knee replacement as it provides efficient pain relief with no motor block of the lower limbs. In addition, compared with 0.2% ropivacaine with sufentanil, the mixture reduces local anaesthetic consumption without compromise in patient satisfaction or VAS scores. Patients even experience less nausea.     

Pre-incisional epidural ropivacaine, sufentanil, clonidine, and (S)+-ketamine does not provide pre-emptive analgesia in patients undergoing major pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND: The concept of pre-emptive analgesia remains controversial. This prospective, randomized, and double-blind study compared epidural administration of ropivacaine 2 mg ml(-1), sufentanil 0.5 microg ml(-1), clonidine 3 microg ml(-1), and S(+)-ketamine 0.25 mg ml(-1) (study solution) given before incision with the same combination started at the end of the operation. METHODS: After testing the stability of the solution using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and examining 12 patients for possible side-effects in comparison with the epidural infusion of ropivacaine 2 mg ml(-1) and sufentanil 0.5 microg ml(-1), 30 patients undergoing major pancreatic surgery were recruited into the study. Before induction of anaesthesia, an epidural catheter was inserted (TH6-8). Patients in Group 1 received a bolus of 8 ml followed by a continuous infusion (8 ml h(-1)) of the study solution before induction of anaesthesia. In Group 2, patients received the same volume of saline before operation, the study solution was started at the end of surgery. After operation, the infusion was maintained for at least 96 h using a patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) pump in both groups. Patients were evaluated up to the seventh postoperative day for pain and side-effects. RESULTS: Visual analogue scale (VAS) values at rest were as follows: G1 vs G2: 24 h, 19 (sd 23) vs 6 (13); 48 h, 4 (10) vs 11 (21); and 72 h, 12 (22) vs 13 (21). VAS values during coughing and mobilization were also comparable. Total volume of epidural infusion was 904 (114) ml in G1 vs 892 (154) ml in G2. The incidence of side-effects (nausea, vomiting, and motor block) was low and not different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-incisional epidural analgesic infusion did not provide pre-emptive analgesia compared with administration started at the end of surgery, but both groups had low pain scores.     

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia after abdominal surgery: ropivacaine versus bupivacaine.

In this randomized, double-blinded study we sought to assess the analgesic efficacy of ropivacaine and bupivacaine in combination with sufentanil and the efficacy of ropivacaine alone after major abdominal surgery. Sixty patients undergoing major abdominal surgery received standardized general anesthesia combined with epidural thoracic analgesia. They were allocated to one of three groups: the BS group received postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia with 0.125% bupivacaine plus 0.5 microg/mL sufentanil; the RS group received 0.125% ropivacaine plus 0.5 microg/mL sufentanil; and the R group received 0.2% ropivacaine, with the patient-controlled epidural analgesia device set at bolus 2-3 mL and background infusion 3-5 mL/h. Visual analog scale scores were significantly lower during coughing in the BS group compared with the RS and R groups and in the RS group compared with the R group. The BS group required significantly less local anesthetic (milligrams per day) during the first three postoperative days compared with the RS and R groups, and the RS group, significantly less than the R group. No major side effects were noted in any group. We conclude that, after major abdominal surgery, thoracic epidural analgesia was more effective with bupivacaine than with ropivacaine when these two local anesthetics are used in a mixture with sufentanil. Ropivacaine alone was less effective than ropivacaine in combination with sufentanil. IMPLICATIONS: After major abdominal surgery, thoracic epidural analgesia was more effective with 0.125% bupivacaine than with 0.125% ropivacaine when these two local anesthetics were used in a mixture with 0.5 microg/mL sufentanil. Ropivacaine 0.2% alone was less effective than 0.125% ropivacaine combined with sufentanil.     

What concentration of sufentanil should be combined with ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol for postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia?

In this randomized double-blinded study, we sought to determine an optimal dose-combination of sufentanil with ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol as postoperative epidural analgesics. One hundred twenty patients undergoing major abdominal surgery under general and thoracic epidural anesthesia (T9-11) were assigned to groups receiving patient-controlled epidural analgesia with ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol (R), ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol + sufentanil 0.5 microg/mL (R+S0.5), 0. 75 microg/mL (R+S0.75), 1.0 microg/mL (R+S1). A visual analog score of less than 40 was considered effective, and all side effects were recorded. In randomized subgroups (10 patients per group), plasma pharmacokinetic data were obtained for both epidural drugs. Four patients in Group R and two in Group R+S0.5 were excluded because of inadequate analgesia. The drug infusion rates (range of means: 5.4-5. 9 mL/h) were similar in all patients. Analgesia was superior for sufentanil 0.75 microg/mL with no further enhancement by the larger sufentanil concentration of 1 microg/mL. Sufentanil plasma levels were within the range of the minimal effective concentrations (highest in R+S1), and there was no covariation between plasma levels and pain relief. Free ropivacaine plasma concentrations remained stable for 96 h. No severe side effects were detected, although pruritus correlated with an increasing dose of sufentanil. We conclude that the combination of ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol and 0.75 microg/mL sufentanil provided the best analgesia with the fewest side effects of the three combinations tested. IMPLICATIONS: Sufentanil is added to epidural infusions of ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol to improve the effectiveness of postoperative pain management. Regarding the risk of side effects, however, it is still unclear what concentration of sufentanil should be added to the local anesthetic. For postoperative thoracic epidural analgesia after major abdominal surgery, the combination of ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol and 0.75 microg/mL sufentanil resulted in an appropriate cost:benefit ratio between good analgesia and side effects.     

Ropivacaine, 0.1%, plus sufentanil, 0.5 microg/ml, versus bupivacaine, 0.1%, plus sufentanil, 0.5 microg/ml, using patient-controlled epidural analgesia for labor: a double-blind comparison

BACKGROUND: This study compared the administration of 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil with that of 0.1% bupivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil via patient-controlled epidural analgesia route during labor. METHODS: Two hundred healthy pregnant women at term with a single fetus with a vertex fetal presentation were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive either 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil or 0.1% bupivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil using a patient-controlled epidural analgesia pump (5-ml bolus dose, 10-min locked-out period, no basal infusion). Pain score on a visual analog scale, Bromage score (0-3), level of sensory block, patient-controlled epidural analgesia ratio, drug use, supplemental boluses, and side effects were recorded at 30 min and then hourly. Mode of delivery, duration of first and second stages of labor, umbilical cord pH, Apgar scores of the newborn, and a measure of maternal satisfaction were recorded after delivery. RESULTS: No differences were seen between the two groups for pain scores on a visual analog scale during labor, volume of anesthetic solution used, mode of delivery, or side effects. Motor block during the first stage of labor was significantly less in the ropivacaine group than in the bupivacaine group (no motor block in 97.8 of patients vs. 88.3%, respectively; P < 0.01). Duration of the second stage of labor was shorter in the ropivacaine group (1.3 +/- 1.0 vs. 1.5 +/- 1.2 h [mean +/- SD]; P < 0.05). Maternal satisfaction was greater in the bupivacaine group (91 +/- 13 mm for contraction, 89 +/- 19 mm for delivery on a visual scale: 0 = not satisfied at all, 100 = fully satisfied) than in the ropivacaine group (84 +/- 21 and 80 +/- 25 mm; P < 0.0001). Patients in the ropivacaine group requested more supplemental boluses to achieve analgesia during the second stage of labor than those in the bupivacaine group (29.7 vs. 19.8%, respectively, requested one or more supplemental boluses; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Delivered as patient-controlled epidural analgesia, 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil produce less motor block but are clinically less potent than 0.1% bupivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil.     

Patient-controlled thoracic epidural infusion with ropivacaine 0.375% provides comparable pain relief as bupivacaine 0.125% plus sufentanil after major abdominal gynecologic tumor surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We tested the hypothesis that an opioid-free local anesthetic alone is able to provide comparable analgesia to the opioid supplemented epidural application of local anesthetics using thoracic epidural catheters after major abdominal surgery. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, and double-blind study, we have compared the analgesic efficacy and side effects of ropivacaine 0.375% (group R) versus bupivacaine 0.125% in combination with sufentanil 0.5 microg/mL(-1) (group B/S) via a thoracic epidural catheter for a duration of 96 hours after major abdominal surgery in 30 gynecologic tumor patients. Piritramide was given for breakthrough pain. Assessments were performed every 12 hours after start of the epidural infusion using continuous (first 24 hours) and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) (24 to 96 hours). RESULTS: No differences were seen in demographic and perioperative data. Dynamic pain scores (visual analog scale [VAS] values) were comparable between groups during mobilization (group R v group B/S: 24 hours: 40 +/- 30 v 36 +/- 14, P =.9; 48 hours: 46 +/- 33 v 42 +/- 25, P =.93; 72 hours: 42 +/- 24 v 48 +/- 26, P =.78; 96 hours: 42 +/- 25 v 29 +/- 28, P =.49) and on coughing during the whole study period. Hemodynamics, intensity of motor block (Bromage scale), and side effects like nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and bladder disfunction also did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: The present study shows that thoracic epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.375% provides comparable pain relief and incidence of side effects after major abdominal gynecologic surgery as bupivacaine 0.125% in combination with 0.5 microg/mL(-1) sufentanil and may therefore represent an alternative in epidural pain management.     

Comparison of continuous background infusion plus demand dose and demand-only parturient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) using ropivacaine combined with sufentanil for labor and delivery

BACKGROUND: Using ropivacaine combined with sufentanil, we determined the analgesic efficacy of parturient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with or without (demand-only PCEA) continuous background infusion in reducing labor pain in 66 parturients. METHODS: After placement of the epidural catheter and administration of an initial bolus containing ropivacaine 16 mg and sufentanil 10 microg, parturients were prospectively randomized into two groups. The PCEA solution consisted of ropivacaine 0.16% plus sufentanil 0.5 microg/mL. Parturients with PCEA plus continuous background infusion received 4 mL/h plus an hourly maximum of three 4-mL boluses on demand (lock-out time 20 min); parturients with demand-only PCEA received an hourly maximum of four 4-mL boluses (lock-out time 15 min) of anesthetic solution. Pain scores (VAS 0-100 mm), drug doses administered, duration of labor, sensory and motor epidural block characteristics, maternal satisfaction, neonatal outcome and adverse events were determined. RESULTS: Both regimens provided excellent parturients' satisfaction and pain relief. However, periods of VAS scores>40 mm during all stages of labor were significantly more frequent in parturients receiving demand-only PCEA (22.4%) compared to parturients receiving PCEA plus continuous background infusion (7.5%, P=0.0011). Drug doses administered, duration of PCEA, labor and delivery, epidural block characteristics, neonatal outcome and adverse events did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Under the conditions of the study, PCEA plus continuous background infusion was more effective than demand-only PCEA in treating labor pain without increasing consumption of anesthetic solution.     

The continuous epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% with 0.5 μg·mL−1 sufentanil provides effective postoperative analgesia after total hip replacement: a pilot study

PURPOSE: To assess the analgesic efficacy and functional outcome of postoperative epidural infusion of ropivacaine combined with sufentanil in a randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: Thirty-two ASA I-III patients undergoing elective total hip replacement (THR) were included. Lumbar epidural block using 0.75% ropivacaine was combined with either propofol sedation or general anesthesia for surgery. On arrival in the recovery room, the epidural infusion was commenced at a rate in mL calculated as follows: (height in cm - 100) x 0.1. Eleven patients received an epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% with 0.5 microg x mL(-1) sufentanil (Group R+S0.5), ten patients ropivacaine 0.1% with 0.75 microg x mL(-1) sufentanil (Group R+S0.75), and 11 patients ropivacaine 0.1% with 1 microg x mL(-1) sufentanil (Group R+S1) over a postoperative study period of 44 hr. All patients had access to iv piritramide via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device. Postel-Merle-d'Aubigné scoring system (PMA score) was assessed preoperatively, three weeks after surgery, and three months after surgery by an orthopedic surgeon blinded to study group. RESULTS: Motor block was negligible in all three groups. After eight hours of epidural infusion, sensory block had regressed completely in all patients. There was no significant difference with regard to visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (at rest: P = 0.55, on movement: P = 0.63), consumption of rescue medication (P = 0.99), patient satisfaction (P = 0.22), and the incidence of adverse events. All treatment regimens provided effective postoperative analgesia with only a minimal use of supplemental opioid PCA. There was no difference between groups regarding orthopedic PMA score (pain: P = 0.24, mobility: P = 0.65, and ability to walk: P = 0.44). CONCLUSION: Ropivacaine 0.1% with 0.5 microg x mL(-1) sufentanil for postoperative analgesia after THR provides efficient pain relief and, compared with 0.75 and 1 microg x mL(-1) sufentanil, reduces sufentanil consumption without compromise in patient satisfaction, VAS scores, and functional outcome.     

A comparison of five solutions of local anaesthetics and/or sufentanil for continuous, postoperative epidural analgesia after major urological surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare and assess the quality of analgesia, the safety and the side-effects after the use of a continuous, thoracic epidural infusion of sufentanil (5 microg h(-1)), 0.25% bupivacaine (10 mL h(-1)), 0.2% ropivacaine (10 mL h(-1)) alone or in combination in patients who had undergone major urological surgery. This prospective, randomized, double-blinded study investigated the efficacy of thoracic epidural infusions after major urological surgery. METHODS: Patients received a 72-h continuous infusion (10 mL h(-1)) of 0.25% bupivacaine (B), 0.2% ropivacaine (R), 0.25% bupivacaine with 0.5 microg mL(-1) sufentanil (BS), 0.2% ropivacaine with 0.5 microg mL(-1) sufentanil (RS) or 0.5 microg mL(-1) sufentanil only (S). The analysis included 109 patients. RESULTS: The mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for pain were highest in the groups R and S (P < 0.001). The PaCO2 values were significantly higher in the groups RS and S (P = 0.003). Motor block occurred more frequently in the groups B and BS than in the other groups (P < 0.001). Sedation, nausea and pruritus were more common in the groups that received sufentanil. CONCLUSIONS: A continuous, epidural infusion with these drugs was safe and effective in our patients. The combination of 0.2% ropivacaine plus sufentanil appeared preferable because of the low incidence of motor block.     

Ropivacaine, 0.1%, Plus Sufentanil, 0.5 μg/ml, versus Bupivacaine, 0.1%, Plus Sufentanil, 0.5 μg/ml, Using Patient-controlled Epidural Analgesia for Labor: A Double-blind Comparison

Background: This study compared the administration of 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.5 [mu]g/ml sufentanil with that of 0.1% bupivacaine and 0.5 [mu]g/ml sufentanil via patient-controlled epidural analgesia route during labor.

Methods: Two hundred healthy pregnant women at term with a single fetus with a vertex fetal presentation were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive either 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.5 [mu]g/ml sufentanil or 0.1% bupivacaine and 0.5 [mu]g/ml sufentanil using a patient-controlled epidural analgesia pump (5-ml bolus dose, 10-min locked-out period, no basal infusion). Pain score on a visual analog scale, Bromage score (0-3), level of sensory block, patient-controlled epidural analgesia ratio, drug use, supplemental boluses, and side effects were recorded at 30 min and then hourly. Mode of delivery, duration of first and second stages of labor, umbilical cord pH, Apgar scores of the newborn, and a measure of maternal satisfaction were recorded after delivery.

Results: No differences were seen between the two groups for pain scores on a visual analog scale during labor, volume of anesthetic solution used, mode of delivery, or side effects. Motor block during the first stage of labor was significantly less in the ropivacaine group than in the bupivacaine group (no motor block in 97.8 of patients vs. 88.3%, respectively;P < 0.01). Duration of the second stage of labor was shorter in the ropivacaine group (1.3 +/- 1.0 vs. 1.5 +/- 1.2 h [mean +/- SD];P < 0.05). Maternal satisfaction was greater in the bupivacaine group (91 +/- 13 mm for contraction, 89 +/- 19 mm for delivery on a visual scale: 0 = not satisfied at all, 100 = fully satisfied) than in the ropivacaine group (84 +/- 21 and 80 +/- 25 mm;P < 0.0001). Patients in the ropivacaine group requested more supplemental boluses to achieve analgesia during the second stage of labor than those in the bupivacaine group (29.7 vs. 19.8%, respectively, requested one or more supplemental boluses;P < 0.05).     

Effectiveness of ropivacaine and fentanyl for postoperative epidural analgesia following thoracic surgery

BACKGROUND: Epidural ropivacaine is now a common drug used for postoperative analgesia. However, little information is available concerning regression of sensory blockade and analgesia following prolonged epidural infusion of ropivacaine. We investigated the efficacy of ropivacaine and fentanyl for postoperative analgesia after thoracic surgery. METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing thoracic surgery were enrolled. After surgery with general and thoracic epidural anesthesia, continuous epidural infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine+fentanyl (1.67 microg x ml(-1)) was started at a rate of 6 ml x h(-1) for patients whose height was more than 155 cm and 4 ml x h(-1) for those below 155 cm with possibility of an additional bolus injection of 3 ml at least every 60 min. RESULTS: An additional epidural injection of 3 ml produced a decrease in VAS without significant changes of vital signs. The greatest VAS was 10+/-25 mm in the incision site and 36+/-38 mm in the ipsilateral shoulder. Sensory blockade was sustained until the morning after the day of surgery. Also blood pressure and heart rate were stable throughout the observation period. There were no adverse effects except for slight nausea in three patients. CONCLUSIONS: A bolus of 3 ml with continuous 4-6 ml x h(-1) epidural injection of ropivacaine plus a small dose of fentanyl would decrease postoperative pain with stable vital signs in patients after thoracic surgery.     

Epidural sufentanil provides better analgesia from 24 h after surgery compared with epidural fentanyl in children

Background: Studies comparing epidural fentanyl and sufentanil in adults reported a similar analgesic effect with variable side effects. We hypothesized that epidural fentanyl and sufentanil will have a similar analgesic effect in children undergoing urological surgery. Methods: Sixty‐four children undergoing urological surgery were randomized into two groups: fentanyl in ropivacaine (fentanyl group, n=32) and sufentanil in ropivacaine (sufentanil group, n=32). After anaesthesia, an epidural catheter was inserted at the L2–3, L3–4 or L4–5 interspace. For post‐operative pain relief, a solution consisting of fentanyl 0.1 mcg/kg/ml or sufentanil 0.015 mcg/kg/ml in 1.5 mg/ml ropivacaine was infused at a rate of 2 ml/h. To assess post‐operative pain, the faces pain scale and the face, legs, activity, cry, consolability score were recorded at 1, 6, 24, 48 and 72 h after surgery. The incidence of adverse effects such as hypoxia, sedation, pruritus, nausea and/or vomiting was also evaluated. Results: Pain scores demonstrated no significant difference between the groups. The need for rescue analgesia during 24–72 h was higher in the fentanyl group than in the sufentanil group (6/32 vs. 0/32, P=0.012). The incidence of pruritus was higher in the sufentanil group compared with that in the fentanyl group (5/32 vs. 0/32). Conclusions: Epidural sufentanil provides better analgesia from 24 h after surgery compared with epidural fentanyl in infants and children undergoing urological surgery. The incidence of pruritus in the sufentanil group was higher than that in the fentanyl group.     

Comparison of continuous epidural infusion of ropivacaine and sufentanil with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after total hip replacement.

We assessed the efficacy of an epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% and sufentanil 1 microg x ml(-1), comparing it with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia using piritramide in this prospective, randomised, double-blind study of 24 ASA physical status I-III patients undergoing elective total hip replacement. Lumbar epidural block using ropivacaine 0.75% was combined with either propofol sedation or general anaesthesia for surgery. Epidural infusion and patient-controlled analgesia were started after surgery. Twelve patients received an epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% and sufentanil 1 microg x ml(-1) at a rate of 5-9 ml x h(-1) and an intravenous patient-controlled analgesia device loaded with saline. Eleven patients received an epidural infusion of saline at the same rate and intravenous piritramide via the patient-controlled analgesia device. Motor block was negligible in both groups. The epidural ropivacaine group had significantly lower visual analogue pain scores at rest 4 h after surgery (p < 0.01), and on movement 4 h (p < 0.01) and 8 h (p < 0.05) after surgery, than the intravenous piritramide group. The piritramide group experienced significantly more adverse events than the epidural group (p < 0.001), especially hypotension (p < 0.01) and vomiting (p < 0.05). Patients in the epidural ropivacaine group were more satisfied with the pain management (p < 0.05). We conclude that the epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% and sufentanil 1 microg x ml(-1) is superior to intravenous opioid by patient-controlled analgesia in preventing pain after total hip replacement, with fewer adverse effects and greater patient satisfaction.     

A randomized trial of automated intermittent ropivacaine administration vs. continuous infusion in an interscalene catheter

Background

Ultrasound‐guided interscalene nerve block with ropivacaine as local anesthetic agent given as boluses or continuous infusion is the preferred pain management after major shoulder surgery. The use of automated intermittent boluses has been shown to be superior to continuous infusion in sciatic and epidural nerve block. Hypothesis: Automated intermittent boluses reduce pain after major shoulder surgery.

Methods

Seventy patients aged 18–75 years, scheduled for major shoulder surgery under general anesthesia with interscalene nerve block were included in this randomized controlled trial. Patients were allocated to either automated intermittent boluses with 16 mg ropivacaine every 2 h combined with patient‐controlled administration or to a conventional regimen of continuous infusion of 8 mg/h (4 ml/h) of ropivacaine combined with patient controlled administration (2 ml, lockout time 30 min). Pain (Visual Analog Scale, VAS) was assessed every 8 h postoperatively.

Results

Fifty‐seven patients completed the study, 29 in the continuous infusion group and 28 in the automated intermittent bolus group. Shoulder arthroplasty was performed in 49 (86%) of the cases. There were no significant differences in VAS score from 8 to 48 h post‐operatively. No significant difference in opioid usage was observed. The automated intermittent bolus group reported significantly less force on coughing and more hoarseness. A significantly lower volume of ropivacaine was used in the automated intermittent bolus group.

Conclusion

Automated intermittent boluses did not reduce pain or rescue opioid consumption compared with continuous infusion of ropivacaine. The automated intermittent bolus group had significantly less force on coughing and more hoarseness.     

膝关节镜术后舒芬太尼罗哌卡因复合镇痛

目的:评价膝关节镜术后关节腔内注射舒芬太尼罗哌卡因混合液的镇痛效果。方法:择期全麻下行膝关节镜手术病人90例,ASAⅠ～Ⅱ级,随机分为3组(n=30):罗哌卡因(R)组、舒芬太尼罗哌卡因(SR)组和生理盐水(S)组。手术结束时,R组关节腔内注射0.45%罗哌卡因20mL,SR组腔内注射5μg舒芬太尼与0.45%罗哌卡因混合液20mL,S组注射等量的生理盐水。结果:与S组比较,R、SR组安静和运动状态下的VAS评分、额外止痛剂的需要量有显著差异(P0.05或P0.01);与R组相比,SR组在运动状态下拥有更好的镇痛效果(P0.05),更少的额外止痛剂的需要量(P0.01)。结论:膝关节镜术后关节腔内注射舒芬太尼与罗哌卡因混合液有完善的镇痛效果,减少了额外止痛剂的需要量。