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.     

Postoperative analgesia using continuous lumbar epidural infusion of ropivacaine in comparison with bupivacaine

BACKGROUND: Epidural bupivacaine infusion is a commonly used technique for postoperative analgesia because of its motor-sparing properties. Recently a new long acting local anesthetic, ropivacaine, has become available. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of ropivacaine and bupivacaine with regard to postoperative analgesia when administered continuously into the lumbar epidural space. METHODS: All patients were ASA I II and undergoing ipsi-lateral leg orthopedic surgery with epidural or combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to following three groups: 0.1% ropivacaine (0.1 R); 0.2% ropivacaine (0.2 R); 0.125% bupivacaine (0.125 B). At the end of surgery, continuous infusion was begun at a rate of 6 ml.hr 1 after a bolus epidural administration of 5 ml of 0.2% ropivacaine in R groups and 0.25% bupivacaine in B group. Sensory and motor block, blood pressure, pulse rate, verbal pain score (VPS), analgesic consumption were assessed at 20 min, 1, 3, 10-20 hrs following the beginning of continuous infusion. RESULTS: Vital signs were stable at every measuring point in all groups. In 0.1 R group (n = 20), the spread of sensory block at 3 hrs after infusion was lower than 0.2 R group (n = 19), and VPS during the study was higher than 0.125 B group (n = 17). Bromage scale after 3 hrs was higher in 0.2 R group compared with 0.125 B group. The degree of sensory and motor block gradually decreased, resulting in little difference between the groups. When epidural anesthesia was spread over the surgical area throughout the study, 0.2 R or 0.125 B was sufficiently relieved from postoperative pain. CONCLUSIONS: After leg orthopedic surgery, 6 ml.hr-1 of 0.2 R or 0.125 B provided enough postoperative analgesia when the spread of anesthesia covered the operated area. 0.2 R would be better compared to 0.125 B in continuous epidural infusion for postoperative analgesia due to less systemic toxicity, even though it accompanies a little more intense motor block.     

Continuous epidural infusion of ropivacaine for the prevention of postoperative pain after major orthopaedic surgery: a dose-finding study

Purpose

A dose-finding study to investigate the use of epidural infusions of ropivacaine for postoperative analgesia following orthopaedic surgery.

Methods

This was a randomized, double-blind study. Surgery was performed using a combination of a lumbar epidural block utilizing ropivacaine 0.5% and a standardized general anaesthetic. Postoperatively, an epidural infusion of the study solution (saline, ropivacaine 0.1%, 0.2% or 0.3%) was started at the rate of 10 ml · hr^?1 and continued for 21 hr after arrival in the PACU. Analgesia was supplemented with PCA morphine (dose = 1.0 mg, lock-out = 5 min).

Results

Forty-four patients completed the study. The ropivacaine 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3% groups required less morphine over the 21 hr than the saline group (P < 0.01). The VAS pain scores were also lower in the three ropivacaine groups (P < 0.001). The ropivacaine groups maintained sensory anaesthesia to pinprick when compared with saline (P < 0.05). The motor block in the 0.3% group was significantly higher than the saline group at all times (P < 0.05), and higher than the 0.1% group at eight hours (P < 0.01), while the 0.2% group had higher Bromage scores than saline at 4 and 21 hr (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

The use of continuous epidural infusions of ropivacaine 0.1%, 0.2% and 0.3% at 10 ml · hr^?1 improved postoperative pain relief and decreased PCA morphine requirements in patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery. The 0.1% and 0.2% concentrations produced similar sensory anaesthesia with less motor blockade than the 0.3% concentration.     

Effects of simultaneous epidural administration of ropivacaine and morphine on the post-operative pain in the gynecologic patients

BACKGROUND: We examined the effects of simultaneous epidural administration of ropivacaine with morphine on the level of the post-operative METHODS: Forty-one patients were assigned to one of three groups [ropivacaine (R), ropivacaine + morphine (RM) or morphine (M)]. In the R group, 5 ml of 1% ropivacaine bolus was administered just before the skin incision followed by infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine (5 ml x hr(-1)) during the first 48 hours after the operation. In the RM and M groups, 5 ml of 1% ropivacaine + 2 mg of morphine bolus was administered just before the skin incision followed by infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine (RM group, 5 ml x hr(-1)) or saline (M group, 5 ml x hr(-1)) + 4 mg x day(-1) of morphine during the first 48 hours after the operation. RESULTS: The score of post-operative pain in the R group is higher than that of the MR group or that of M group. There is no difference between the score of post-operative pain of the MR group and that of the M group. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggested that simultaneous epidural administration of ropivacaine with morphine produces no beneficial effect as compared with morphine alone.     

0.2% ropivacaine with or without fentanyl for patient-controlled epidural analgesia after major abdominal surgery: a double-blind study

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of adding low concentration of fentanyl to 0.2% ropivacaine when providing patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) outside the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind study. SETTING: Inpatients at a University Department of Anesthesia. PATIENTS: 32 ASA physical status I, II, and III patients, who were scheduled for elective major abdominal surgery, including bowel resection, hepatic resection, and pancreaticoduodenectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received standard general/epidural anesthesia. After surgery patients were randomly allocated in a double-blind fashion to receive PCEA with either 0.2% ropivacaine (n = 16) or 0.2% ropivacaine/2 microg/mL fentanyl (n = 16) [background infusion ranging between 4 and 6 mL/hr, with 1.5-mL incremental doses and a 20-min lock-out time]. Dynamic pain during coughing, sedation, pulse oxymetry, hemodynamic variables, and motor block were evaluated at 1, 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours after the end of surgery by a blinded observer. Occurrence of untoward events, including nausea, vomiting, pruritus, need for supplemental oxygen (for SpO(2) < 90%), and respiratory complications, as well as total consumption of PCEA solution and incremental doses given to the patient were also recorded.Measurements and Main Results: No differences in pain relief, motor block, degree of sedation, recovery of gastrointestinal motility, and other side effects were observed between the two groups. Patients receiving 0.2% ropivacaine alone requested far more incremental doses (23 doses [0-60] vs. 5 doses [0-25]) (p = 0.006) and needed far more analgesic solution (230 mL [140-282] vs. 204 [130-228]) (p = 0.003) than patients receiving the ropivacaine/fentanyl mixture. Peripheral oxygen saturation was lower at 12, 24, and 48 hours during ropivacaine/fentanyl infusion than in patients receiving ropivacaine alone (12 h: 91% +/- 2% vs. 95% +/- 2%, p < 0.006; 24 h: 93% +/- 1% vs. 96% +/- 2%, p = 0.003; 48 h: 92% +/- 1.8% vs. 96% +/- 1%, p = 0.004).Conclusions: A thoracic epidural infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine, with or without fentanyl, provided effective pain relief in most patients with a very low degree of motor blockade. Adding 2 microg/ml fentanyl to 0.2% ropivacaine reduced total consumption of local anesthetic solution and need for incremental doses, but did not provide clinically relevant advantages in quality of pain relief and incidence of motor block, leading to a significant decrease in peripheral SpO(2), lasting up to 48 hours after surgery.     

Patient supplemented epidural analgesia after major abdominal surgery with bupivacaine/fentanyl or ropivacaine/fentanyl

PURPOSE: To compare analgesic efficacy and occurrence of motor block and other side effects during patient supplemented epidural analgesia (PSEA) with either ropivacaine/fentanyl or bupivacaine/fentanyl mixtures. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, double-blind study, 32 ASAI-III patients undergoing major abdominal surgery received an epidural catheter at the T8- T10, followed by integrated general epidural anesthesia. Postoperative epidural analgesia was provided using a patient controlled pump with either ropivacaine 0.2%/2 microg x ml(-1) fentanyl (group Ropivacaine, n = 16) or bupivacaine 0.125%/2 microg x ml(-1) fentanyl (group Bupivacaine, n = 16) [background infusion 4-6 ml x hr(-1), 1.5 ml Incremental Doses and 20 min lock out]. Verbal pain rating score, number of incremental doses, consumption of epidural analgesic solution and rescue analgesics, sedation (four-point scale), and pulse oximetry were recorded by a blind observer for 48 hr after surgery. RESULTS: No differences in pain relief, motor block, degree of sedation, pulse oximetry and other side effects were observed between the two groups. The number of incremental doses and the volume of analgesic solution infused epidurally were higher in patients receiving the bupivacaine/fentanyl mixture (10 [0-52] I.D. and 236 [204-340] ml) than in patients receiving the ropivacaine/fentanyl solution (5 [0-50] I.D. and 208 [148-260] ml) (P = 0.03 and P = 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION: Using a ropivacaine 0.2%/2 microg x ml(-1) fentanyl mixture for patient supplemented epidural analgesia after major abdominal surgery provided similar successful pain relief as bupivacaine 0.125%/2 microg x ml(-1) fentanyl, but patients receiving bupivacaine/fentanyl requested more supplemental.     

Continuous epidural infusion of ropivacaine for postoperative analgesia after major abdominal surgery: comparative study with i.v. PCA morphine

We have compared the quality of three regimens of postoperative analgesia (continuous epidural administration of ropivacaine (Ropi. group), epidural ropivacaine and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with i.v. morphine (Ropi. + PCA group) and PCA morphine alone (PCA group)) during the first postoperative 24 h in a multicentre, randomized, prospective study. Postoperative analgesia was studied in 130 patients after major abdominal surgery performed under general anaesthesia. The ropivacaine groups received 20 ml of epidural bolus ropivacaine 2 mg ml-1 via the epidural route at the end of surgery, followed by continuous infusion of 10 ml h-1 for 24 h. The Ropi. + PCA group also had access to i.v. PCA morphine 1 mg, with a 5-min lockout. The PCA group received morphine as the sole postoperative pain treatment. The two ropivacaine groups had lower pain scores (P < 0.01) than the PCA group. Morphine consumption was higher in the PCA group (P < 0.05) than in the two ropivacaine groups. The quality of pain relief was rated as good or excellent in 79-85% of patients in the three groups. The percentage of patients without motor block increased between 4 and 24 h from 61% to 89% in the Ropi. group, and from 51% to 71% in the Ropi. + PCA group.      

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.     

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.     

Advantage of ropivacaine for postoperative epidural analgesia following leg orthopedic surgery

BACKGROUND: Epidural administration of local anesthetics may lead to effective pain relief. However, tachyphylaxis or other problems following prolonged epidural anesthesia may develop and in many cases difficulties exist in the maintenance of the similar degree of sensory blockade. The present study was therefore performed to investigate the analgesic effect of continuous postoperative epidural infusion of ropivacaine with fentanyl in comparison with that of bupivacaine or ropivacaine alone. METHODS: After leg orthopedic surgery with lumbar combined spinal-epidural anesthesia, thirty-six patients were randomized to one of the three postoperative epidural infusion groups: bupivacaine 0.125%, ropivacaine 0.2%, or ropivacaine 0.2% with 2.2 microg x ml(-1) (400 microg x 180 ml(-1)) of fentanyl. Continuous epidural infusion was started at a rate of 6 ml x h(-1) with possibility of an additional bolus injection of 3 ml at least every 60 min. Pain was assessed using a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS) just before and 15 min after epidural bolus injections, and 15-20 h after the start of continuous epidural infusion as the severe at pain through the observation. The spread of analgesia (loss of sharpness in pinprick perception) and motor block (Bromage scale) were evaluated bilaterally. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate were also measured. RESULTS: The epidural bolus infusion was associated with a significant decrease of VAS (P < 0.001) and stable blood pressure and heart rate in all groups. The maximal VAS in patients receiving 0.2% ropivacaine+fentanyl was significantly less compared to that in the other two groups. The regression of sensory blockade was significantly prolonged in patients treated with ropivacaine+fentanyl. There was no significant difference in the spread of sensory analgesia between 20 min and 15-20 h after the continuous epidural anesthesia in this group. None of the patients developed adverse effects such as respiratory depression, nausea, and pruritis. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural injection of ropivacaine with fentanyl decreased postoperative pain with stable vital signs in patients undergoing leg orthopedic surgery, as compared to bupivacaine or ropivacaine alone, possibly because of the maintenance of sensory blockade by ropivacaine and enhancement of this sensory blockade by fentanyl.     

Postoperative analgesia with no motor block by continuous epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% and sufentanil after total hip replacement.

We assessed the analgesic efficacy of postoperative epidural ropivacaine 0.1% with and without sufentanil 1 microgram/mL in this prospective, randomized, single-blinded study of 30 ASA physical status I-III patients undergoing elective total hip replacement. Lumbar epidural block using 0.75% ropivacaine was combined with either propofol sedation or general anesthesia for surgery. After surgery, the epidural infusion was commenced. Fifteen patients in each group received either an epidural infusion of 0.1% ropivacaine with 1 microgram/mL sufentanil (R + S) or 0.1% ropivacaine without sufentanil (R) at a rate of 5-9 mL/h. All patients had access to i.v. piritramide via a patient-controlled analgesia device. The R + S group consumed six times less piritramide over a 48-h infusion period than the R group (median 12.7 vs 73.0 mg; P < 0.001). Motor block was negligible for the study duration in both groups. Patient satisfaction was excellent. The incidence of adverse events, such as nausea, was similar. We conclude that a continuous epidural infusion of 0.1% ropivacaine with 1 microgram/mL sufentanil is more effective than ropivacaine alone in treating pain after elective hip replacement without motor block. Implications: This is the first randomized study comparing the efficacy of the epidural combination of ropivacaine 0.1% and sufentanil 1 microgram/mL versus plain ropivacaine 0.1% in treating pain after hip replacement. We found that ropivacaine 0.1% and sufentanil 1 microgram/mL led to a sixfold reduction in opioid requirements after total hip replacement by producing a negligible motor block.     

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.     

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.     

Postoperative analgesia by combined continuous infusion and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) following hip replacement: ropivacaine versus bupivacaine

BACKGROUND: Ropivacaine is a new local anaesthetic, which compared to bupivacaine is less toxic and shows greater sensory and motor block dissociation. We hypothesised that treatment of postoperative pain with a combined regimen of continuous epidural infusion and Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia (PCEA) using ropivacaine could have given better results compared with those we had obtained using bupivacaine. METHODS: Patients undergoing total hip replacement were randomly assigned to two groups. They received epidural analgesia for postoperative pain treatment using ropivacaine, 2 mg x ml(-1) or bupivacaine 2 mg x ml(-1). Both drugs were administered as a constant infusion of 6 ml x h(-1) supplemented by PCEA bolus doses of 2 ml. Patients in both groups received morphine intravenously on demand from a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device. An independent observer recorded pain scores, intensity of motor block and morphine consumption at regular intervals during the first 24 h after surgery. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were evaluated. Ropivacaine and bupivacaine, in similar amounts, provided similar results assessed as adequate to very good postoperative analgesia, whereas motor block was significantly more intense in patients treated with bupivacaine. CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar analgesic effects, epidural infusion of ropivacaine combined with PCEA provides higher patient satisfaction than equal doses of bupivacaine due to lack of motor block.     

A comparison of epidural ropivacaine infusion alone and in combination with 1, 2, and 4 microg/mL fentanyl for seventy-two hours of postoperative analgesia after major abdominal surgery

Our aim in this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study was to compare the analgesic effectiveness and side effects of epidural infusions with ropivacaine 2 mg/mL alone (Group R; n = 60) and in combination with fentanyl 1 microg/mL (R1F; n = 59), 2 microg/mL (R2F; n = 62), and 4 microg/mL (R4F; n = 63) for up to 72 h after major abdominal surgery. Effective epidural neural blockade was established before surgery; postoperatively, the infusion rate was titrated to a maximum of 14 mL/h for analgesia. No additional analgesics other than acetaminophen were permitted during the infusion. The median of individual visual analog scale score with coughing were <20 mm for all groups (0 = no pain, 100 = worst pain) and was significantly lower (P < 0.01) for Group R4F at rest and with coughing (compared with Group R). Infusions were discontinued due to inability to control pain in significantly fewer patients in Group R4F (16%) than the other groups (34% to 39%; P < 0.01). For all groups, >90% of patients had no detectable motor block after 24 h. Hypotension, nausea, and pruritus were more common with the larger dose of fentanyl. We conclude that, after major abdominal surgery, an epidural infusion of ropivacaine 2 mg/mL with fentanyl 4 microg/mL provided significantly more effective pain relief over a 3-day period than ropivacaine alone or ropivacaine with lower concentrations of fentanyl. Implications: Postoperative epidural analgesic infusions are widely used, but there is little information regarding optimal strengths of opioid with local anesthetic. In this blinded, prospective study, we compared four different epidural infusion solutions for efficacy and side effects over a clinically useful postoperative period and conclude that an epidural infusion of ropivacaine 2 mg/mL with fentanyl 4 microg/mL was most effective.     

Epidural infusion of low dose bupivacaine after combined spinal-epidural anesthesia using needle through needle method provided no analgesic effect on postoperative pain after caesarian section

BACKGROUND: In order to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of low dose epidural bupivacaine infusion with and without morphine after caesarean section we performed combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) using needle through needle method. Three different epidural analgesic regimens were compared retrospectively. METHODS: The number of analgesic use during 24 hours after operation was compared. Patients were categorized into three groups; group N : intraoperative bolus epidural morphine (2.5 mg) alone, group L : bolus morphine (2.5 mg) plus epidural bupivacaine infusion (32 ml of 0.2% bupivacaine) at a rate of 2.1 ml x hr(-1), group M : bolus morphine (2.4 mg) plus epidural bupivacaine-morphine (33 ml of 0.2% bupivacaine containing morphine 2.3 mg) infusion at a rate of 2.1 ml x hr(-1). Used analgesics included pentazocine 15 mg i.m., diclofenac 25 mg suppo. and loxoprofen 60 mg p.o.. RESULTS: The mean number of analgesic use during the first 24 hours in group M (0.29 +/- 0.46) was significantly smaller than those of group N (0.97 +/- 0.91) and group L (0.84 +/- 0.95). Percentage of patients requiring no analgesic during the first 24 hours was significantly less in group M (70.8%) than in group N (33.4%) and group L (42.1%). CONCLUSIONS: A 2.1 ml x hr(-1) infusion of epidural bupivacaine has no analgesic effect after caesarean section under CSEA using NTN method.     

0.2% ropivacaine vs. 0.1% ropivacaine plus fentanyl in obstetric epidural analgesia

OBJECTIVE: To compare the analgesic efficacy of epidural administration of 0.2% ropivacaine alone to that of 0.1% ropivacaine plus 0.0002% fentanyl during childbirth. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized single-blind study of 84 women in labor (aged 16 to 40 y, ASA I-II, weight over 110 kg, height over 150 cm, gestational age 37 to 42 weeks). The women were randomly assigned to two groups: group I consisted of 42 patients who received an initial bolus of 10 ml of ropivacaine 0.2% followed by continuous perfusion of ropivacaine 0.2% at a rate of 6 to 10 ml/h; group II was composed of 42 women who received an initial bolus of ropivacaine 0.2% with 50 micrograms of fentanyl followed by continuous infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% and fentanyl 2 micrograms/ml at a rate of 6 to 10 ml/h. Data recorded were parity and type of delivery, blood pressure, heart rate (HR), time to onset of pain relief, motor blockade on a modified Bromage scale, pain on a visual analog scale (VAS) and fetal HR, Apgar score and arterial and venous pH of umbilical blood. RESULTS: We found no significant differences in demographic or hemodynamic data in mothers or fetuses, in type of delivery or motor block, although the latter tended to be slightly lower in group II. In group II, the total anesthetic dose used was significantly lower (p = 0.003); time until onset of pain relief was significantly shorter (p = 0.044); and VAS scores were significantly lower at 15 min (p = 0.005), 30 min (p = 0.029), 60 min (p = 0.017) and 90 min (p = 0.002). The number of top-up boluses needed for deliveries involving instruments was significantly greater in group II (p = 0.37). CONCLUSION: The protocol of ropivacaine 0.1% with 2 micrograms/ml of fentanyl provides satisfactory analgesia throughout labor, allowing lower doses of local anesthetic to be used, with shorter onset of pain relief and reduced motor blockade; however the analgesia provided is insufficient for deliveries assisted by instruments.     

Comparison between bupivacaine 0.125% and ropivacaine 0.2% for epidural administration to outpatients with chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Epidural blocks should provide good analgesia for the treatment of chronic low back pain without any motor block to allow active physiotherapy. Epidural ropivacaine is known to produce less motor block compared to bupivacaine at anaesthetic concentrations. This prospective, randomized double blind study compares the analgesic, motor block, and haemodynamic effects of single shot epidural injections of ropivacaine 0.2% 10 mL with bupivacaine 0.125% in outpatients suffering from chronic low back pain. METHODS: Forty patients were assigned to receive either ropivacaine 0.2% (n = 20) or bupivacaine 0.125% (n = 20) within a series of eight single shot epidural blocks. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients received either ropivacaine 0.2% (n = 18) or bupivacaine 0.125% (n = 18) within a series of eight single shot epidural blocks. Both groups showed no significant differences either in analgesia, or in motor blockade or haemodynamic changes. Thus ropivacaine 0.2% did not reduce the incidence of motor block (9.0% of patients with motor block Bromage scores 1, 2 or 3 in ropivacaine or bupivacaine). The combination of repeated epidural analgesia and physiotherapy reduced the median pain-scores (visual analogu scale, 0-10) from 7 (SD +/- 1.6) at the beginning of the study to 4.1 (SD +/- 1.7) at the end of the series. CONCLUSIONS: Both bupivacaine 0.125% and ropivacaine 0.29% appear suitable for epidural administration to outpatients with chronic low back pain attending for epidural analgesia associated with physiotherapy (physical therapy).     

A comparison of 0.1% and 0.2% ropivacaine and bupivacaine combined with morphine for postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia after major abdominal surgery

Ropivacaine (ROPI), which is less toxic and produces less motor block than bupivacaine (BUPI), seems attractive for epidural analgesia. Few data are available concerning dose requirements of epidural ROPI when combined with morphine. In this study, we compared the dose requirements and side effects of ROPI and BUPI combined with small-dose morphine after major abdominal surgery. Postoperatively, 60 patients were randomly allocated (double-blinded manner) to four groups: patient-controlled epidural analgesia with the same settings using 0.1% or 0.2% solution of ROPI or BUPI combined with an epidural infusion of 0.1 mg/h of morphine. Pain scores, side effects, motor block, and local anesthetic consumption were measured for 60 h. Pain scores and the incidence of side effects did not differ among the groups. Consumption of ROPI and BUPI were similar in both 0.1% groups. Doubling the concentration significantly reduced the consumption (milliliters) of BUPI (P < 0.05) but not of ROPI. Consequently, using ROPI 0.2% significantly increased the dose administered as compared with ROPI 0.1% (ROPI 0.1% = 314 +/- 151 mg and ROPI 0.2% = 573 +/- 304 mg at Hour 48; P < 0.05). Patient-controlled epidural analgesia with the 0.1% or 0.2% solution of ROPI or BUPI combined with epidural morphine resulted in comparable analgesia. As compared with ROPI 0.1%, the use of ROPI 0.2% increased consumption of local anesthetic without improving analgesia. IMPLICATIONS: Small-dose (0.1%) ropivacaine and bupivacaine have similar potency and result in comparable analgesia and incidence of side effects.     

A comparison of the analgesic efficacy of 0.25% levobupivacaine combined with 0.005% morphine, 0.25% levobupivacaine alone, or 0.005% morphine alone for the management of postoperative pain in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery

We compared the relative efficacy of the combination of the single-isomer local anesthetic levobupivacaine and the opioid analgesic morphine versus both drugs alone for postoperative epidural analgesia after major abdominal surgical procedures. Thoracic epidural anesthesia was produced and maintained with levobupivacaine 0.75% in combination with general inhaled anesthesia without opioids. Patients were randomized to one of three postoperative treatment groups: 1) a combination of levobupivacaine 0.25% and morphine 0.005%; 2) levobupivacaine 0.25%; or 3) morphine 0.005%. Postoperatively, all epidural infusions were commenced at a rate of 4 mL/h. Patients could receive a 4 mL-bolus dose and an increase in the epidural infusion rate by 2 mL/h on request for supplemental analgesia. Patients were also allowed ketorolac as a supplemental analgesic at any time after the first analgesic request. Patients in the combination group had longer times to request for supplemental analgesia as compared with the levobupivacaine only group (P < 0.05) and a trend toward longer time to request as compared with the morphine only group (P = 0.066). Patients in the combination group had lower visual analog scale pain scores at rest and activity at 4 and 8 h and fewer requests for supplemental ketorolac (P < 0.05). In conclusion, this study demonstrates a significant improvement in postoperative analgesic efficacy with the combination of levobupivacaine and morphine for continuous epidural analgesia after major abdominal surgical procedures. IMPLICATIONS: A significant improvement in postoperative analgesic efficacy is demonstrated with the thoracic epidural administration of the combination of the single-isomer local anesthetic levobupivacaine 0.25% and morphine 0.005% in patients after major abdominal surgical procedures as compared with either drug used alone.