Thoracic epidural clonidine and morphine for postoperative pain relief

This study was undertaken to evaluate the potentiation of the postoperative analgesic effect of thoracic epidural morphine by coadministration of thoracic epidural clonidine in a randomized double-blinded design. Twenty patients underwent radical gastrectomy under combined general anaesthesia (enflurane and nitrous oxide/oxygen) and epidural anaesthesia with local anaesthetics. They received a thoracic epidural bolus injection of either 0.05 mg · kg^?1 morphine plus 3 μg · kg^?1 clonidine (M+C group; n =10) or 0.05 mg · kg^?1 morphine alone, (M group; n = 10) immediately before completion of surgery. All patients received iv morphine via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) equipment for 24 hr postoperative period, and the PCA iv consumption of morphine was the primary variable of efficacy of the analgesic regimen. In addition, data analyses included mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, arterial blood gas measurement, sedation score, and visual analogue pain scale score (VAS). The cumulative number of iv morphine injections via PCA was less in the M+C group than in the M group at each hour for 24 hr postoperative period (P < 0.05), while the numbers of PCA morphine injections per hour beyond nine hours after surgery were higher in the M group than in the M+C group (P < 0.05). Sedation score was higher, and VAS and mean blood pressure were lower in the M+C group only at one hour after surgery compared with the M group. We conclude that the combined single thoracic epidural administration of morphine plus clonidine produces a more potent and longer lasting analgesia than does morphine alone.     

Pain relief after esophagectomy: Thoracic epidural analgesia is better than parenteral opioids.

OBJECTIVE: To compare postoperative pain relief and pulmonary function in patients after thoracoabdominal esophagectomy treated by continuing perioperative thoracic epidural anesthesia or changing to parenteral opioids. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study. SETTING: University teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three patients undergoing thoracoabdominal esophagectomy. INTERVENTIONS: General anesthesia was combined with thoracic epidural anesthesia during surgery. The patients either continued with thoracic epidural analgesia (n = 18) or were switched to patient-controlled analgesia with intravenous morphine (n = 15) for 5 postoperative days. Pain scores were estimated twice daily, at rest and after mobilization. Peak expiratory flow, forced expiratory volume, and vital capacity were measured the day before surgery, postoperative day 2, and postoperative day 6. Adverse events and complications were recorded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At rest, there were no differences in pain relief between the groups. Pain scores at mobilization showed a significantly lower value in the epidural group (p < 0.027). No intergroup differences were found regarding pulmonary function, which decreased on postoperative day 2, but was improved on postoperative day 6. CONCLUSION: Continuation of intraoperative thoracic epidural anesthesia for 5 postoperative days provides better pain relief at mobilization compared with a switch to patient-controlled analgesia with intravenous morphine. There was no intergroup difference in the impact on measures of pulmonary function.     

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.     

Comparison of continuous spinal and epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour

We have compared continuous spinal analgesia with continuous epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour. Twenty-six women were randomly allocated to receive either epidural 0.25% bupivacaine 5-10 ml via a 20 gauge catheter inserted through a 16 gauge Tuohy needle or intrathecal 0.25% bupivacaine 0.5-1.0 ml via a 32 gauge catheter inserted through a 24 gauge Sprotte needle. This was supplemented with fentanyl 5-10 mcg (spinal) or 1 mcg per kg (epidural) if analgesia was unsatisfactory. Outcome was measured by the success and timing of the procedure, time to analgesia, amount of drug given, visual analogue scoring of pain relief by the patient and an observer and degree of motor block. Onset time and dosage were significantly reduced in the continuous spinal group. Two catheters failed to feed in the spinal group. One catheter became displaced in each group. Pain relief was satisfactory in all patients and none had post-dural puncture headache. Continuous spinal analgesia may offer significant advantages over epidural analgesia but technical difficulties remain with the present equipment. The reasons for the withdrawal of the spinal catheters in the United States of America are discussed.     

Intercostal nerve blockade versus thoracic epidural analgesia for post thoracotomy pain relief

Background Post thoractomy pain is a major source of concern in the postoperative period. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of intraoperative temporary intercostal nerve blockade versus thoracic epidural analgesia for control of post thoracotomy pain. Methods 40 patients undergoing elective pulmonary resection through a postero lateral thoractomy were randomly allocated to receive epidural analgesia using 0.25% bupivicaine (Group A, n=20) or temporary intercostal nerve blockade using 0.25% bupivicaine (Group B, n=20). Adequacy of analgesia was assessed over a period of 24 hours using a visual analogue score and an observer verbal ranking scale. Results Pain scores were similar in both the groups for the first 4 hours after surgery. Thereafter, the pain scores were significantly higher (p<0.05) in Group B as compared to Group A for the remainder of the observation period. There was significantly higher (p<0.01) usage, of nonsteroidal analgesic consumption in Group B. No neurological complications were encountered, in both the study groups. Conclusion We conclude that in the early postoperative period there is no significant difference in pain relief in both the techniques but there after, epidural analgesia significantly reduces post thoracotomy pain.     

Comparison of computer integrated patient controlled epidural analgesia vs. conventional patient controlled epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour

Computer integrated-patient controlled epidural analgesia (CI-PCEA) is a novel drug delivery system. It automatically titrates the background infusion rate based on the individual parturient's need. In this randomised trial, we compared the local anaesthetic consumption by parturients using CI-PCEA with demand only patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) for labour analgesia. We recruited 40 parturients after approval by the ethics committee. Group PCEA (n = 20) received demand only PCEA. Group CI-PCEA (n = 20) received a similar PCEA regimen but the computer integration titrated the background infusion to 5, 10 or 15 ml x h(-1) if the patient required one, two or three demand boluses, respectively, in the previous hour. The background infusion decreased by 5 ml x h(-1) if there was no demand bolus in the previous hour. The sample size was calculated to show equivalence in local anaesthetic used. The time weighted consumption of local anaesthetic was similar in both groups (mean difference 0.7 mg x h(-1), 95% confidence interval [CI: -2.5, 1.1]; p = 0.425). The CI-PCEA group had higher maternal satisfaction scores: mean (SD) 93 (7) vs. 86 (11), p = 0.042. CI-PCEA does not increase the use of local anaesthetic when compared with demand only PCEA but does increase patient satisfaction.     

Maternal satisfaction with the quality of epidural analgesia for pain relief in labor

OBJECTIVE: To measure patient satisfaction with epidural analgesia in labor and to analyze the sociodemographic characteristics of the obstetric population treated in our hospital. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We administered an anonymous questionnaire in July and December 2003 to all patients who received epidural analgesia during labor to obtain information on the intensity of pain before analgesia and the efficacy of this procedure. RESULTS: A total of 1067 questionnaires were returned. Of the patients who responded to the questionnaire, 91.3% were satisfied with the process of epidural anesthesia, 93.8% stated that they would recommend the technique used in our hospital, and 94% responded that they would request the technique again in our hospital. Spanish nationals accounted for 74.8% of the surveyed patients; the remaining 25.2% were from other countries-mainly from Central and South America (18% of the total). Before administration of epidural analgesia, 23.3% of Spanish primiparas defined labor pain as severe compared to 40.7% of foreign primiparas (P<.001). Of the multiparas, 212% of Spanish patients described the pain as severe compared to 40.4% of foreign women (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The overall level of satisfaction with the process of epidural analgesia is very high and was not influenced by sociodemographic factors. Labor pain is perceived as being more intense by non-Spanish women.