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.     

罗哌卡因硬膜外持续输注下氯诺昔康PCIA的临床效应

目的 研究硬膜外持续输注罗哌卡因期间氯诺昔康静脉PCA的临床效应和不良反应,并以吗啡对照比较。方法 选择60例(ASAⅠ～Ⅱ)妇科经腹子宫全切手术病人,随机分为L组与M组,双盲观察,均采用双泵行PCA治疗。其PCA设置为Bolus 1ml/次,锁定时间为5min,1h限量12ml。镇痛效果和副作用评定:(1)采用视觉模拟评分(VAS),0为无痛、10为剧痛。(2)BCS舒适评分。(3)病人对PCA总体印象评分。(4)记录可能出现的并发症和不良反应。结果 两组病人的一般情况相似,24h硬膜外罗哌卡因使用剂量均为192mg,L组与M组未按压PCA泵的病人各为5例(21.7％),静脉PCA用药剂量分别为(3.4±2.8)mg(L组)和(4.7±3.5)mg(M组),两药用量比值为1:1.4(P>0.05);相同时间段内两组间VAS、BCS、Bromage评分及D1/D2比值均无统计学差异。结论0.2％罗哌卡因硬膜外持续输注(4ml/h)能明显减少静脉PCA用量,新型非甾体类抗炎药氯诺昔康与吗啡静脉用药效价相似,但氯诺昔康对病人恶心呕吐的不良反应具有明显减少的优点。     

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 ropivacaine or sufentanil-ropivacaine infusions for post-thoracotomy pain.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy and side effects of continuous epidural infusions of ropivacaine and ropivacaine-sufentanil mixtures after thoracotomy. METHODS: Sixty-two patients scheduled for thoracic surgery were allocated in this prospective double-blinded randomised study. They received an epidural catheter inserted from thoracic 5-6 (Th(5-6)) interspace a day before surgery and were randomly assigned into two groups, sufentanil-ropivacaine group (Group SR, n=31) and ropivacaine group (Group R, n=31). Bolus dose of the study drugs, ropivacaine 0.2% or ropivacaine 0.2% and sufentanil 0.75 microg/ml calculated in ml according to the patient's height was given through the epidural catheter before surgery. One hour after anaesthesia induction, another bolus was given and the epidural infusion was started (4.5-8 ml). Whenever visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were > or =4 during function, the patients received additional boluses and the infusion rate was increased by 1 ml/h. If the pain was not relieved after administration of two boluses, the patient was excluded from the study. RESULTS: VAS at rest and during function was lower in ropivacaine-sufentanil group and the need for additional boluses and infusion rate increase was high in ropivacaine group (P<0.05). Ropivacaine-sufentanil infusion rate was decreased due to nausea and vomiting in two patients and due to CO(2) retention in one patient. There was no statistically significant difference between the incidences of side effects except pruritus significantly higher in Group SR. The total epidural solution volume was more in Group R (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The continuous epidural infusion of ropivacaine with sufentanil provided superior pain relief than ropivacaine alone without causing any severe side effect or post-operative pulmonary impairment.     

Side-effects of postoperative epidural analgesia in children: a randomized study comparing morphine and clonidine

BACKGROUND: Morphine is widely used in association with local anaesthetics for postoperative epidural analgesia. There are no data on the prolonged use of clonidine for postoperative analgesia in children. The primary outcome of this randomized, double-blind trial was to compare the incidence of side-effects after epidural infusion of clonidine or morphine, in association with ropivacaine in children. METHODS: After institutional approval, 26 children, aged 3-12 years, who were scheduled for abdominal surgery, had an epidural catheter placed after induction of general anaesthesia. Patients were then randomized to two different groups. After an initial bolus of 2.5 mg x kg-1 0.25% ropivacaine with either 40 micro g x kg-1 morphine (group M, n = 14) or 1 micro g x kg-1 clonidine (group C, n = 12), an epidural infusion was started at a rate of 0.4 ml x kg-1 x h-1. The patients in the M group received an infusion of 0.08% ropivacaine with 10 micro g.ml-1 morphine, those in the group C an infusion of 0.08% ropivacaine with 0.6 micro g.ml-1 clonidine. RESULTS: The two groups were similar with respect to age, sex and weight. One patient in the C group was excluded for misplacement of the epidural catheter. The incidence of vomiting and pruritus was significantly higher in the M group compared with the C group (64% and 85% versus 0%, respectively). The incidence of pain was significantly higher in the C group compared with the M group (73% versus 29%) as well as the need for rescue analgesia medications. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural clonidine is followed by a significantly lower incidence of side-effects. However, its analgesic effects, at least at the doses used in this study, are less potent than those of epidural morphine.     

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.      

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.     

Pain control with epidural anesthesia for uterine artery embolization

BACKGROUND: To reduce the severity of post procedure pain associated with uterine artery embolization (UAE) for leiomyomata, we used continuous infusion of low concentration ropivacaine through an epidural catheter. METHODS: Thirteen patients for UAE were evaluated. In a patient without indication for epidural anesthesia, the pain was controlled with intermittent morphine infusion. Other patients had post procedure pain managed with 10 ml bolus of 1% lidocaine and continuous infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine at 5 ml x hr-1 for 16 hours. RESULTS: The patient complained of severe pain just after UAE and required epidural lidocaine. Then, we started to infuse lidocaine or ropivacaine just before starting UAE. Among these cases, 9 patients required extra pain control using NSAIDs as a rescue. Only three patients required no medication except epidural analgesia. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine at a rate of 5 ml x hr-1 is not enough for pain management after UAE.     

The optimal dose of fentanyl added to 0.2% ropivacaine for postoperative epidural analgesia after gynecological surgery

BACKGROUND: Combined administration of local anesthetics and an opioid is frequently used in order to minimize the dose of each drug and to reduce adverse effects. Although fentanyl is commonly administered with local anesthetic, side effects of fentanyl increase in a dose-dependent manner. In this study, we determined the optimal dose of epidural fentanyl after gynecological surgery. METHODS: One hundred and sixteen adult patients scheduled for elective gynecological surgery were divided into 3 groups according to postoperative epidural analgesics; 0.2% ropivacaine (group R), 0.2% ropivacaine with 2 microg x ml(-1) fentanyl (group RF 2), or 0.2% ropivacaine with 5 microg x ml(-1) fentanyl (group RF 5). Each analgesic was infused at 5 ml x hr(-1) for 48 hr. Pain scores , incidence of NSAIDs administration and side effects were recorded for 48 hr after the surgery. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Ropivacaine alone could not provide sufficient analgesia. Although the addition of 5 microg x ml(-1) fentanyl to 0.2% ropivacaine at a rate of 5 ml x hr(-1) improved postoperative pain, side effects caused by fentanyl increased. Supplementing 2 microg x ml(-1) fentanyl provided sufficient analgesia with the least incidence of side effects.     

Ropivacaine 1 mg x ml(-1) does not decrease the need for epidural fentanyl after hip replacement surgery

BACKGROUND: Ropivacaine is a new long-acting local anesthetic. Laboratory trials have demonstrated a synergistic analgesic effect between intrathecal opioids and local anesthetics. We tested the hypothesis that addition of ropivacaine 1 mg x ml(-1) to epidural fentanyl (10 microg x ml(-1)) postoperatively decreases the need for fentanyl, improves the quality of analgesia and decreases the side-effects of fentanyl. METHODS: Forty patients were enrolled in this double-blind, randomized study to receive either fentanyl 10 microg x ml(-1) (group F) alone or fentanyl combined with ropivacaine 1 mg x ml(-1) (group R) for 20 h as an epidural infusion at TH12-L1 or L1-L2 for analgesia after hip replacement surgery. The patients were free to use a patient-controlled epidural analgesia device, which was programmed to infuse 3 ml of the study medication hourly and to allow a 3-ml bolus when needed (maximal hourly dose of fentanyl was 150 microg). The consumption of medication, visual pain scores at rest and on movement, hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, motor and sensory block, nausea, pruritus and sedation were recorded. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups in the total mean fentanyl consumption (1.10+/-0.18 mg in group F, 1.08+/-0.31 mg in group R, 95% CI: -0.14 to 0.19, P = 0.774). The pain scores were similar at rest (median scores < or = 1) and on movement (median scores < or = 3). The adverse effects were similar and of a minor nature, consisting mostly of pruritus and nausea. CONCLUSION: Addition of ropivacaine 1 mg x ml(-1) to epidural fentanyl 10 microg x ml(-1) did not significantly decrease the requirement for fentanyl administered for pain relief after hip replacement surgery.     

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.     

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.     

Epidural naloxone reduces intestinal hypomotility but not analgesia of epidural morphine

PURPOSE: Epidural morphine is associated with decreased bowel motility and increased transit time. Low doses of intravenous naloxone reduce morphine-induced pruritus without reversing analgesia, but the effect of epidural naloxone on bowel motility has not been studied. Therefore we evaluated bowel motility and analgesia when naloxone was co-administered with morphine into the epidural space. METHODS: Forty-three patients having combined thoracic epidural and general anesthesia for subtotal gastrectomy were randomly assigned to one of two study groups. All received a bolus dose of 3 mg epidural morphine at the beginning of surgery, followed by a continuous epidural infusion containing 3 mg morphine in 100 ml bupivacaine 0.125% with either no naloxone (control group, n = 18) or a calculated dose of 0.208 microg x kg(-1) x hr(-1) of naloxone (experimental group, n = 25) for 48 hr. We measured the time to the first postoperative passage of flatus and feces to evaluate the restoration of bowel function, and visual analog scales (VAS) for pain during rest and movement. Scores were assessed at 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 36 and 48 hr postoperatively. RESULTS: The experimental group had a shorter time to the first postoperative passage of flatus (5 1.9 +/- 1 6.6 hr vs 87.0 +/- 19.5 hr, P < 0.001 ) and feces (95.3 +/- 25.0 hr vs 132.9 +/- 29.4 hr, P < 0.001). No differences were found in either resting or active VAS between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Epidural naloxone reduces epidural morphine-induced intestinal hypomotility without reversing its analgesic effects.     

Epidural naloxone reduces pruritus and nausea without affecting analgesia by epidural morphine in bupivacaine

PURPOSE: To determine whether epidural naloxone preserved analgesia while minimizing side effects caused by epidural morphine. METHODS: Eighty patients undergoing combined epidural and general anesthesia for hysterectomy were randomly assigned to one of four groups. All received 2 mg epidural morphine bolus one hour before the end of surgery and a continuous epidural infusion was started containing 4 mg morphine in 100 ml bupivacaine 0.125% with either no naloxone (Group 1, n = 20), 0.083 microg x kg(-1) x hr(-1) of naloxone (Group 2, n = 20), 0.125 microg x kg(-1) x hr(-1) of naloxone (Group 3, n = 20) or 0.167 microg x kg(-1) x hr(-1) of naloxone (Group 4, n = 20). Analgesia and side effects were evaluated by blinded observers. RESULTS: The combination of epidural morphine and bupivacaine provided good analgesia. Eight hours after the end of surgery, the pain score in the group receiving the highest dose of naloxone was lower than in the control group (VAS 1.2 vs. 2.0, P<0.05) but there was less pruritus in the high-dose naloxone group (itching score 1.3 vs. 1.9, P<0.05). Pain scores were no different in any of the naloxone groups from the control group. Itching was less in both of the higher dose naloxone groups (P<0.05 at 8, 16, and 32 hours). The incidence of vomiting in the control group was 40% vs. 5% for high dose naloxone group (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Epidural naloxone reduced morphine-induced side effects in dose-dependent fashion without reversal of the analgesic effect.     

Addition of femoral 3-in-1 blockade to intra-articular ropivacaine 0.2% does not reduce analgesic requirements following arthroscopic knee surgery

PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that the addition of a preincisional femoral 3-in-1 block to intra-articular instillation with ropivacaine 0.2% at the end of surgery improves postoperative pain control in patients undergoing arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) under general anesthesia. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, we studied 44 patients scheduled for inpatient ACLR. Prior to incision, the treatment group (n = 22) received a femoral 3-in-1 block with 40 ml ropivacaine 0.2%, augmented by infiltrations of the lateral and anteromedial incisions with 20 ml ropivacaine 0.2% at the end of the procedure. The control group (n = 22) received saline 0.9% instead of ropivacaine. All patients received an intra-articular instillation with 30 ml ropivacaine 0.2% at the end of surgery. The primary efficacy variable was 24 hr morphine consumption postoperatively standardized by weight, administered intravenously via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump. RESULTS: There was no difference between both groups in 24 hr PCA morphine consumption postoperatively (control, 0.45 +/- 0.44 [mean +/- SD] mg x kg(-1); treatment, 0.37 +/- 0.50 mg x kg(-1); p = 0.55). No difference was found in postoperative visual analog scale pain scores, adverse events, or vital signs. In the treatment group, R = 10/22 patients did not require postoperative morphine compared with R = 6/22 in the control group (P = 0.35). CONCLUSION: We found no effect of a femoral 3-in-1 block with ropivacaine 0.2% on postoperative analgesic consumption, compared to intra-articular instillation with ropivacaine 0.2% alone, in patients undergoing ACLR under general anesthesia.     

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.     

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

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

The 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.     

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.     

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.