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.     

Optimal dose of fentanyl for postoperative epidural analgesia after thoracic surgery

BACKGROUND: We investigated the dose of fentanyl in ropivacaine for epidural anesthesia that will provide effective analgesia with minimal side effects after thoracic surgery. METHODS: Sixty patients scheduled to undergo thoracic surgery were randomly allocated to four groups according to fentanyl dose in epidural analgesia: group R (0 microg x hr(-1); n = 15), group F1 (5 microg x hr(-1); n = 15), group F2 (10 microg x hr(-1); n = 15) and group F3 (15 microg x hr(-1); n = 15). Pain scores (visual analogue scale: VAS) were assessed at 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 48 hrs after surgery. Degrees of satisfaction regarding pain relief and complications during a period of 48 hrs after surgery were compared. RESULTS: Pain scores in group F3 were significantly lower than those in the other groups at 3, 6, and 12 hrs after surgery. The number of postoperative analgesics used in group R was significantly more than the numbers used in other groups. The incidences of side effects were similar in the four groups. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that continuous epidural administration of more than 15 microg x hr(-1) of fentanyl in ropivacaine provides pain relief and few side effects after thoracic surgery.     

布比卡因、罗哌卡因与芬太尼不同配伍用于连续术后硬膜外镇痛安全性探讨

目的探讨布比卡因、罗哌卡因与芬太尼不同配伍用于连续术后硬膜外镇痛的效果、并发症及安全陛。方法1600例行连续术后硬膜外镇痛的患者,按所用镇痛药物配伍不同分为：0．1％布比卡因＋5μg／ml芬太尼组（B组,n=920）和0．2％罗哌卡因＋2μg／ml芬太尼组（R组,n=680）。对两组镇痛效果（视觉模拟评分及患者对镇痛效果的满意度）、并发症和处理措施进行总结分析。结果视觉模拟评分两组无差异（P〉0．05）。患者对镇痛的满意度R组明显高于B组（P〉0．05）。并发症的发生率B组高于R组（P〉0．05）。两组内年龄≥60岁的患者低血压的发生率高于年龄〈60岁者（P〈0．05）;女性患者恶心呕吐的发生率高于男性（P〈0．05）;腰段硬膜外镇痛患者下肢乏力或麻木的发生率明显高于胸段硬膜外镇痛患者（P〈0．05）。结论布比卡因、罗哌卡因与芬太尼不同配伍均可安全有效地用于连续术后硬膜外镇痛,罗哌卡因组并发症较少,并发症的发生与镇痛药物、年龄、性别及硬膜外置管部位有关。     

Optimal dose of fentanyl for postoperative epidural analgesia after cesarean section

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate which dose of fentanyl in ropivacaine for epidural anesthesia will provide effective analgesia with minimal side effects after cesarean section (CS). METHODS: Fifty eight patients scheduled for CS were randomly allocated to two groups according to fentanyl dose in epidural analgesia: group F1 (11 microg x hr(-1); n=30) or group F 2 (21 microg x hr(-1); n= 28). Ropivacaine 0.2% 100 ml with fentanyl 400 or 800 microg was administered into the epidural space in the groups F1 and F 2, respectively. Pain scores (visual analogue scale: VAS) with cough or movement, Bromage score, incidence of diclofenac or pentazocine administration, satisfaction score (VAS) and side effects (nausea, vomiting and pruritus) were recorded after CS. RESULTS: Pain scores with cough or movement were significantly lower in the group F 2 than the group F 1 at twelve and twenty-four hours after CS. Bromage score at twelve hours was lower in the group F 2 than the group F 1. The incidences of side effects were similar between the two groups. Satisfaction score was significantly higher in the group F 2 than the group F 1. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that continuous epidural administration of fentanyl 21 microg x hr(-1) with ropivacaine provides the optimum balance between pain relief and side effects compared with fentanyl 11 microg x hr(-1) with ropivacaine after CS.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Study of analgestic efficacy of ropivacaine-fentanyl patient-controlled epidural analgesia after upper abdominal gynecological surgery

BACKGROUND: Most of the patients who undergo radical or subradical hysterectomy with paraaortic lymphadenectomy suffer from postoperative pain for upper abdominal incision. They also complain of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) frequently, which are increased by opioids. METHODS: Reducing total fentanyl dose to 0.6 mg, frequency of moving pain complaints increased gradually. Therefore, we introduced patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) for suppressing pain on moving. We investigated analgestic efficacy of 0.2% ropivacaine-fentanyl PCEA in twelve patients undergoing upper abdominal gynecological surgery. Postoperative analgesic effects were evaluated by visual analogue scale (VAS) at rest and on moving, times of bolus infusion, side effects, and degrees of satisfication by patient's self-assessments. Continuous epidural infusion of 0.6 mg fentanyl in 288 ml 0.2% ropivacaine was started at a rate of 4 ml x hr(-1) with a bolus dose of 2 ml. RESULTS: VAS was maintained below 20 mm at rest but was elevated to the maximum of 45 mm on moving with few bolus requests. Ninty-two percents of the patients answered satisfied but fifty percents of them had PONV. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that ropivacaine-fentanyl PCEA is effective after upper abdominal gynecological surgery, and we can decrease the dose of fentanyl by explaining PCEA system more effectively to the patients for suppressing the pain on moving and PONV.     

Pre- and intraoperative epidural ropivacaine have no early preemptive analgesic effect in major gynecological tumour surgery

PURPOSE: Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is an established technique for postoperative pain relief after major abdominal surgery. However it is still under discussion whether pre-incisional TEA can reduce postoperative pain perception or postoperative analgesic consumption. METHODS: The present prospective, randomized, double-blind study was performed to investigate the effects of intra- and postoperative TEA vs only postoperative TEA using ropivacaine 0.375% in 30 women scheduled for major abdominal tumour surgery. Prior to induction of general anesthesia patients received an epidural bolus of 10 mL saline in Group I (GI) and 10 mL ropivacaine 0.375% in Group II (GII) followed by an infusion of 6 mL x hr(-1) of the respective solution during surgery. Postoperatively all patients received an epidural infusion of 6 mL x hr(-1) ropivacaine 0.375% during 24 hr followed by patient controlled epidural analgesia for the next 72 hr. Operative data, dynamic pain scores, consumption of local anesthetics and standardized supplemental analgesics were analyzed. RESULTS: No difference was seen between groups with respect to the amount of required postoperative local anesthetics and supplemental analgesics, pain scores and side effects during the first 96 hr following surgery except a reduction of intraoperative sufentanil consumption (GI: 143.2 +/- 52.6 vs GII: 73.3 +/- 32.6 microg, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Intraoperative TEA with ropivacaine 0.375% did not significantly reduce the amount of analgesics required after major abdominal gynecological tumour surgery.     

Ropivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) by epidural infusion for labour analgesia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of 0.1% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) via epidural for analgesia in labour. METHODS: In a randomized study, 80 nulliparous parturients in labour had epidural analgesia initiated with 0.2% ropivacaine and fentanyl and were then randomized to receive either 0.1% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) at 10mL h(-1) (Group R1, n = 38) or 0.2% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) at 8 ml h(-1) (Group R2, n = 39) as epidural infusions. Supplementary analgesia was provided on request with ropivacaine 0.2% 5 mL as an epidural bolus. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the visual analogue pain scores either with respect to motor block or sensory block. The amount of local anaesthetic used was lower in the 0.1% ropivacaine group than in the 0.2% ropivacaine group (P = 0.001). Side-effects, patient satisfaction, labour outcome and neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: An epidural infusion of 0.1% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) at 10 mL h(-1) provided adequate analgesia in the first stage of labour. The level of analgesia was similar to that obtained using 0.2% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) and with no differences with regard to motor or sensory block.     

A randomized,double-blinded comparison of thoracic epidural ropivacaine,ropivacaine/fentanyl,or bupivacaine/fentanyl for postthoracotomy analgesia

Epidural ropivacaine has not been compared with bupivacaine for postthoracotomy analgesia. Eighty patients undergoing elective lung surgery were randomized in a double-blinded manner to receive one of three solutions for high thoracic epidural analgesia. A continuous epidural infusion of 0.1 mL. kg(-1). h(-1) of either 0.2% ropivacaine, 0.15% ropivacaine/fentanyl 5 micro g/mL, or 0.1% bupivacaine/fentanyl 5 micro g/mL was started at admission to the intensive care unit. We assessed pain scores (rest and spirometry), IV morphine consumption, spirometry, hand grip strength, PaCO(2), heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and side effects (sedation, nausea, vomiting, and pruritus) for 48 h. Thoracic epidural ropivacaine/fentanyl provided adequate pain relief similar to bupivacaine/fentanyl during the first 2 postoperative days after posterolateral thoracotomy. The use of plain 0.2% ropivacaine was associated with worse pain control during spirometry, larger consumption of IV morphine, and increased incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Morphine requirements were larger in the ropivacaine group, with no differences between bupivacaine/fentanyl and ropivacaine/fentanyl groups. Patients in the ropivacaine group experienced more pain and performed worse in spirometry than patients who received epidural fentanyl. There was no significant difference in motor block. We conclude that epidural ropivacaine/fentanyl offers no clinical advantage compared with bupivacaine/fentanyl for postthoracotomy analgesia. IMPLICATIONS: Thoracic epidural ropivacaine/fentanyl provided adequate pain relief and similar analgesia to bupivacaine/fentanyl during the first 2 postoperative days after posterolateral thoracotomy. Plain 0.2% ropivacaine was associated with worse pain control and an increased incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. We conclude that epidural ropivacaine/fentanyl offers no clinical advantage compared with bupivacaine/fentanyl for postthoracotomy analgesia.     

Postoperative pain management: epidural analgesia

BACKGROUND: Epidural analgesia is one of the most effective regimens for postoperative pain relief after abdominal surgery. The use of epidural analgesia in high risk patients has been associated with significant decrease in surgical stress response, in cardiac and pulmonary morbidity, in recovery of gastrointestinal function and in thromboembolic events. The aim of this paper is to describe pain relief, side effects and recovery of gastrointestinal function during epidural analgesia. METHODS: During the period January 1999 to September 2001, 590 patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery received epidural analgesia. Epidural catheters were inserted at T8-T9 (upper abdominal surgery) or T9-T11 (lower abdominal surgery) and ropivacaine 0.5% ml 7-12 combined with sufentanil 30 microg or with morphine 2 mg was injected. General anesthesia was induced and a continuous epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.5% 5-10 ml/h was begun. Postoperatively, continuous epidural administration of ropivacaine 0.2% plus sufentanil 0.5 microg/ml or ropivacaine 0.2% plus morphine 0.02 mg/ml was continued. Data on the quality of analgesia, recovery of gastrointestinal function and all side effects were recorded for 4 days. RESULTS: Resting and incident pain scores were <4 and <5; 20% of patients received a rescue dose; the incidence of nausea was 6%, pruritus 5%; all patients also recovered from postoperative ileus. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous epidural analgesia resulted in good pain relief, provided the best balance of analgesia and side effects and improved postoperative outcome.     

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.     

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia combined with patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for postoperative analgesia after Miles' operation for rectal cancer

A 69-year-old woman (156 cm, 53 kg) underwent a Miles' operation, total hysterectomy, resection of vagina, and thigh flap to vulva for rectal cancer. Before general anesthesia, an epidural catheter was inserted at T11-12 interspace, and 1.5% mepivacaine 7ml was administered. Sensory block level spread from T4 to L1. Anesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with sevoflurane in air oxygen mixture. Operation was performed uneventfully. After the operation, postoperative analgesia was achieved with patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). The epidural solution of 0.06% ropivacaine with 4 microg x ml(-1) fentanyl and 20 microg x ml(-1) was connected to a PCA pump (i-Fuser, JMS, Japan) that was programmed as an 8 ml initial bolus, 4 ml x hr(-1) basal infusion, 2 ml bolus dose, and 10-min lockout interval. Although abdominal pain was well controlled by PCEA, intractable pain in the pelvic nerve region existed. Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (IV-PCA) with fentanyl, ketamine, and lidocaine was added to PCEA. Then excellent pain relief was obtained without any side effects such as nausea, vomiting, drowsiness, and respiratory depression. It could be useful to use IV-PCA together with PCEA when wide spread postoperative analgesia is necessary.     

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.     

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.     

Epidural analgesia in abdominal surgery: 0.2% ropivacaine with sufentanil

AIM: Combining an opioid with peridural local analgesia is an excellent technique to control post-operative pain. Sufentanil is a widely used opioid agent, but its optimal dosage has not yet been defined. In this study we wanted to determine the best dose of epidural sufentanil in major surgery. METHODS: Before the operation, 45 major abdominal surgery patients received blended anesthesia through an epidural chest catheter. The patients were randomized into 3 groups of 15 subjects according to different sufentanil doses [0.2% ropivacaine combined with sufentanil at a dose of 0.5 microg/ml(-1), 0.75 microg/ml(-1), or 1 microg/ml(-1) (groups A, B and C, respectively)] administered through an epidural chest catheter connected to an elastometric pump (5 ml/h) for the first 36 postoperative hours. The level of postoperative analgesia in motion and at rest was measured using an analog visual scale (VAS-R, VAS-I). RESULTS: Analgesia was best in group A, and similar in groups B and C; 2 cases of pruritus were noted in group C. The VAS-I scores were <3 across all 3 patient groups. CONCLUSION: Epidural analgesia is an efficacious and reliable technique. The combination of 0.2% ropivacaine and 0.75 microg/ml(-1) sufentanil was found to be the optimum choice between analgesic efficacy and minor side effects, which correlated with the higher dose of sufentanil given to group C.     

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia versus continuous epidural infusion with ropivacaine for postoperative analgesia in children

Epidural ropivacaine infusion has been used in children; however, patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) has not been evaluated in the pediatric population. In this study, we compared the clinical efficiency of PCEA and of continuous epidural infusion analgesia (CEA) in children. Forty-eight children undergoing orthopedic surgery were randomized to receive PCEA or CEA with ropivacaine 0.2%. All patients underwent a standard general anesthetic. Children also received ketoprofen and propacetamol. Pain scores and side effects were recorded for 48 h. If the visual analog score scale score was >4 of 10, analgesia was considered inadequate, and rescue treatment was administered. Both groups obtained effective pain relief. Children in the PCEA group received significantly less local anesthetic than those in the CEA group (0.20 +/- 0.08 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1) versus 0.40 +/- 0.08 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1); P < 0.001). Motor effects, supplemental analgesic requirements, and side effects did not differ. We concluded that PCEA with ropivacaine 0.2% can provide adequate postoperative analgesia for pediatric orthopedic procedures with smaller dose requirements than CEA. IMPLICATIONS: We studied patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and continuous epidural infusion analgesia (CEA) with 0.2% ropivacaine during the postoperative period in children. We found that either PCEA or CEA with plain ropivacaine 0.2% provided adequate pain relief in children during the first 48-h postoperative course. However, adequate analgesia was obtained with 50% less volume infused with PCEA compared with CEA.     

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.     

A comparison of patient-controlled epidural analgesia following gynaecological surgery with and without a background infusion

We conducted a randomised, controlled study to investigate the effect of adding a background infusion to patient-controlled epidural analgesia for postoperative pain relief. Forty-two patients scheduled for elective lower abdominal gynaecological surgery received patient-controlled epidural analgesia postoperatively using a mixture of 0.2% ropivacaine and 2.0 microg x ml-1 fentanyl. Patients in group B (n = 20) were given a background infusion of 5 ml x h-1, whereas those in group N (n = 21) were not. There was no difference in pain scores or patient satisfaction scores between the two groups. Patients in group B had a higher total drug consumption (156.8 +/- 34.8 ml vs. 89.5 +/- 41.0 ml; p < 0.0001) and incidence of side-effects (71.4% vs. 30.0%; p = 0.007). Motor blockade during the 24-h study period was also greater in group B (median [range] area under the curve 7.5 [0.0-39.0] h vs. 3.0 [0.0-36.0] h; p = 0.035). We conclude that the addition of a background infusion to patient-controlled epidural anaesthesia is not recommended as it confers no additional benefits.