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.     

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.     

A comparison of ropivacaine with fentanyl to bupivacaine with fentanyl for postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia

Ropivacaine for patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) may facilitate postoperative patient mobilization because it causes less motor block than bupivacaine. Forty patients undergoing abdominal surgery were randomized in a double-blinded manner to the following: 0.05% bupivacaine/4 microg fentanyl, 0.1% bupivacaine/fentanyl, 0.05% ropivacaine/fentanyl, or 0.1% ropivacaine/fentanyl for standardized PCEA. We measured pain scores, side effects, and PCEA consumption for 42 h. Lower-extremity motor function was assessed with electromyography and isometric force dynamometry. Analgesia was equivalent among groups. Local anesthetic use was more in the 0.1% Ropivacaine and 0.1% Bupivacaine groups (77% increase, P = 0.001). Motor function decreased during PCEA (10%-35% decrease from preoperative, P < 0.001) and was equivalent among groups. Eight patients were transiently unable to ambulate. These patients used more local anesthetic (45 vs 33 mg mean, P < 0.05) with additional decrease in motor function (32%, P < 0.004) compared with ambulating patients. Other side effects were mild and equivalent among solutions. PCEA with bupivacaine/fentanyl and ropivacaine/fentanyl as 0.05% or 0.1% solutions appears clinically equipotent. Lower-extremity motor function decreases, but is unlikely to result in prolonged inability to ambulate. Use of a 0.05% solution may be advantageous to decrease local anesthetic use and prevent transient motor block. IMPLICATIONS: Patient-controlled epidural analgesia with bupivacaine/fentanyl and ropivacaine/fentanyl as either 0.05% or 0.1% solutions are clinically similar. Lower-extremity motor function will decrease with the use of any of these combinations, but is unlikely to result in the inability to walk.     

Comparison of bupivacaine 0.2% and ropivacaine 0.2% combined with fentanyl for epidural analgesia during labour

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Recent clinical studies comparing ropivacaine 0.25% with bupivacaine 0.25% reported not only comparable analgesia, but also comparable motor block for epidural analgesia during labour. An opioid can be combined with local anaesthetic to reduce the incidence of side-effects and to improve analgesia for the relief of labour pain. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects of epidural bupivacaine 0.2% compared with ropivacaine 0.2% combined with fentanyl for the initiation and maintenance of analgesia during labour and delivery. METHODS: Sixty labouring nulliparous women were randomly allocated to receive either bupivacaine 0.2% with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) (B/F), or ropivacaine 0.2% with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) (R/F). For the initiation of epidural analgesia, 8 mL of the study solution was administered. Supplemental analgesia was obtained with 4 mL of the study solution according to parturients' needs when their pain was > or = 4 on a visual analogue scale. Analgesia, hourly local anaesthetic use, motor block, patient satisfaction and side-effects between groups were evaluated during labour and at delivery. RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled and 53 completed the study. No differences in verbal pain scores, hourly local anaesthetic use or patient satisfaction between groups were observed. However, motor block was observed in 10 patients in the B/F group whereas only two patients had motor block in the R/F group (P < 0.05). The incidence of instrumental delivery was also higher in the B/F group than in the R/F group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that epidural bupivacaine 0.2% and ropivacaine 0.2% combined with fentanyl produced equivalent analgesia for pain relief during labour and delivery. It is concluded that ropivacaine 0.2% combined with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) provided effective analgesia with significantly less motor block and need for an instrumental delivery than a bupivacaine/fentanyl combination at the same concentrations during labour and delivery.     

开胸手术后不同浓度舒芬太尼混合罗哌卡因病人自控硬膜外镇痛的效果

目的比较开胸手术后不同浓度舒芬太尼混合罗哌卡因病人自控硬膜外镇痛(PCEA) 的效果。方法36例择期开胸行肺叶、食管及纵隔肿瘤切除术后的病人,ASAⅠ-Ⅲ级,年龄21-64 岁,体重42-79kg。随机分为3组(n=12),A、B、C组术后分别用0.4、0.5、0.6 μg/ml舒芬太尼混合0.125%罗哌卡因PCEA。分别于术后4、8、20、24、48 h记录VAS评分、镇痛药液用量、PCA的按压次数、生命体征(脉搏血氧饱和度、呼吸频率、心率及平均动脉压)、镇静及副作用(恶心、呕吐、皮肤瘙痒、胸闷等),并计算PCA按压次数比。结果术后48 h之内,C组VAS评分低于A、B组(P<0.05或0.01),B组实际PCA按压次数低于A组(P<0.05),C组镇痛药液用量、实际PCA按压次数低于A、B 组(P<0.05),PCA按压次数比高于A组(P<0.01)。术后生命体征平稳,镇静、恶心、呕吐、皮肤瘙痒及胸闷的发生率低。结论开胸手术后0.6 μg/ml舒芬太尼混合0.125%罗哌卡因PCEA镇痛效果最好,且不增加用药量及副作用。     

A comparison of 0.0625% bupivacaine with fentanyl and 0.1% ropivacaine with fentanyl for continuous epidural labor analgesia

We compared the analgesic efficacy and the degree of motor block achieved with epidural infusion of 0.0625% bupivacaine (Group B) versus 0.1% ropivacaine (Group R), both with 0.0002% fentanyl (2 microg/mL) in laboring patients. A prospective, double-blinded study was performed in 98 ASA physical status I-II parturients who were divided randomly into two groups to receive either bupivacaine or ropivacaine after catheter location had been tested with an initial bolus of lidocaine and fentanyl. The infusion rate was 15 mL/h in every case. When pain was perceived, 5-mL boluses of the assigned epidural analgesic were administered every 10 min until analgesia was achieved. We recorded pain intensity, level of sensory block, degree of motor block, hemodynamic variables, secondary effects, mode of delivery, neonatal outcome, and patient satisfaction. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the factors analyzed. Highly effective analgesia was achieved in both groups with a small incidence of motor block. These findings suggest that bupivacaine may be more potent than ropivacaine. IMPLICATIONS: We compared different concentrations of epidural bupivacaine and ropivacaine thought to be equipotent. Both solutions were equally efficient in providing highly effective epidural analgesia for labor with minimal motor block. These findings suggest that bupivacaine may be more potent than ropivacaine.     

Epidural infusions for labor analgesia: A comparison of 0.2% ropivacaine, 0.1% ropivacaine,and 0.1% ropivacaine with fentanyl

Background and Objectives: Epidural infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine is recommended by the manufacturer for labor analgesia, but lower concentrations may be effective. The objective of this study was to compare 0.1% ropivacaine with 0.2% ropivacaine and to examine the effect of addition of fentanyl. Methods: In a randomized double-blind study, 58 nulliparous laboring parturients had epidural analgesia established with 0.2% ropivacaine and were then randomized to receive one of the following epidural infusions at 10 mL/h: 0.2% ropivacaine (group R2, n = 19), 0.1% ropivacaine (group R1, n = 19), or 0.1% ropivacaine with 2 [mu ]g/mL fentanyl (group RF, n = 20). Supplementary analgesia was provided on request with 5-mL boluses of 0.2% ropivacaine. Results: All solutions provided effective analgesia during early labor, with all groups requiring similar numbers of supplementary top-ups. Visual analog pain scores in groups R2 and RF were equivalent and lower than in group R1 (P = .006). Hypotension was more frequent in group RF compared with groups R2 and R1 (P = .014). Patient and midwife satisfaction and obstetric and neonatal outcomes were similar among groups. Maternal venous plasma concentrations of ropivacaine were greater in group R2 compared with groups R1 and RF (P = .008), but umbilical venous concentrations were similar. Conclusions: We conclude that epidural infusion of 0.1% ropivacaine alone at 10 mL/h provided adequate analgesia in the first stage of labor, and that the addition of 2 [mu ]g/mL fentanyl to that concentration improved analgesia to a quality similar to 0.2% ropivacaine alone. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2002;27:31-36.     

0.2%罗比卡因和0.15%布比卡因用于胸科手术后病人自控硬膜外镇痛

目的　评价 0 2 %罗比卡因加 2 μg/ml芬太尼与 0 15 %布比卡因加 2 μg/ml芬太尼用于胸科手术后病人自控硬膜外镇痛 (PCEA)的效果及不良反应。方法　 32例ASAⅠ～Ⅲ级择期胸科手术病人 ,采用丙泊酚静脉全麻复合硬膜外麻醉。术后随机分为两组 :R组 (n =16 )给予 0 2 %罗比卡因加 2 μg/ml芬太尼 ;B组 (n =16 )给予 0 15 %布比卡因加 2 μg/ml芬太尼。行PCEA ,持续镇痛治疗 72小时 ,由不知情观察者每 4小时记录一次安静及咳嗽时的疼痛VAS评分、血压、心率及SpO2 。每 2 4小时记录全天有效按压次数、所用药量、最痛时的VAS评分及不良反应 ,并由病人评价镇痛效果的满意度。结果　两组病人术后第 1天VAS评分分别为 :安静时R组 (1 1± 1 5 )分 ,B组为 (1 0± 1 4 )分 ;咳嗽时R组 (3 2± 2 0 )分 ,B组 (3 4± 1 3)分 ;最痛程度R组 (4 5± 2 6 )分 ,B组 (4 6±1 6 )分 ,满意度均为 3(2～ 4 )。术后第 2天和第 3天VAS评分及镇痛满意度与第 1天类似。两组安静、咳嗽及最痛时的VAS评分、患者自评镇痛满意度、总用药量及PCEA量差异无显著性 (P >0 0 5 )。术后第 2天最低平均动脉压R组 (83± 7)mmHg ,B组 (75± 11)mmHg ,第 3天最低心率R组(87± 8)次 /分 ,B组 (78± 9)次 /分 ,B组均低于R组 (P <0 0 5 )。     

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.     

罗比卡因背景输注下有或无吗啡负荷剂量对硬膜外PCA效应影响的比较

目的　研究妇科手术后病人在罗比卡因 (Rop)不同背景剂量输注下 ,有或无吗啡 (Mor)负荷剂量对硬膜外PCA效应的影响。方法　选择经腹子宫全切术病人 12 0例 (ASAⅠ～Ⅱ级 )随机分成六组 ,通过三通管硬膜外给予背景剂量 0、2、4、6、4和 6ml/h 0 2 %Rop输注 ;另一泵镇痛液为0 0 1%Mor ,前四组 (C0 、C2 、C4 、C6组 )以LP模式 (负荷剂量 +PCA)加强镇痛 ,后两组 (C4N和C6N组 )以P模式 (仅用PCA)辅助 ,观察镇痛评分、运动阻滞及不良反应等情况。结果　六组镇痛效果均达到满意程度 ,其质量分数C0 组 0 0 5 ) ;各组低血压和心动过缓发生率无统计学差异 ,均无呼吸抑制。结论　妇科经腹手术后以 0 2 %Rop 4～ 6ml/h背景剂量输注 ,可采用有或无负荷剂量模式 ,     

0.2% ropivacaine with or without sufentanil for patient-controlled epidural analgesia after anterior cruciate ligament repair

AIM: The aim of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to evaluate the effects of adding 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil to 0.2% ropivacaine for patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) on the quality of postoperative pain control in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: Twenty ASA physical status I-II patients, scheduled to have elective ACL repair were studied. Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia was performed at the L3-L4 or L4-L5 interspace using a needle-through-needle technique. Spinal anesthesia was induced with 10 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Postoperative epidural analgesia was started at the end of surgery using a continuous epidural infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine alone (n=10) or 0.2% ropivacaine/0.5 mg mL(-1) sufentanil (n=10). The degree of pain was evaluated at 1, 8, 16, 24 and 48 hours after surgery; at the same observation times the degree of motor block, sedation, oxygen saturation, total consumption of PCEA solution and incremental doses given to the patient were also recorded. RESULTS: No differences in the quality of intraoperative anesthesia was observed, and in no case general anesthesia was required to complete surgery. Patients receiving the combination of ropivacaine and sufentanil showed lower levels of VAS from 16 hours after surgery as compared with ropivacaine group (P=0.02). However, no differences in the degree of pain were observed between the 2 groups during continuous passive mobilization. CONCLUSION: Adding 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil to 0.2% ropivacaine for patient controlled epidural analgesia improved pain control at rest but did not result in significant improvement of postoperative analgesia during continuous passive mobilization.     

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.     

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.     

单次剂量吗啡复合罗比卡因用于剖宫产术后PCEA的效果评价

目的 用单次剂量吗啡复合持续剂量不同浓度罗比卡因应用于剖宫产术后硬膜外自控镇痛（patient controlled epidural analgesia,PCEA)，与持续剂量吗啡和罗比卡因相比较，寻求一种减少吗啡用量，更适合下腹部手术的硬膜外自控镇痛方法。方法 80例ASAⅠ-Ⅱ级行子宫下段剖宫产的产妇，随机分为四组，单次剂量吗啡分三组；SMR0.1组，0.1%罗比卡因；SMR0.2组，0.2%罗比卡因，SMR0.05组，0.05%罗比卡因，三组均先单次静注吗啡1mg 氟哌利多持续硬膜外给药，观察产妇24小时内VAS，镇静评分，Prine Henry评分，改良Bromage分级的变化，PONV等不良反应的发生率，记录产妇24小时内用药量。结果 VAS评分；CM组，SMR0.2组大于SMR0.1组，SM0.05组和CM组。SMR0.1组，SMR0.05组尿潴留，排气时间延长发生率明显低于SMR0.2组，CM组，结论 1mg吗啡单次给药复合维持剂量0.1%罗比卡因用于剖宫产术后PCEA能够取得良好的镇痛效果。感觉-运动阻滞分离效果好，不良反应少。     

Focus on mobilisation after lower abdominal surgery. A double-blind randomised comparison of epidural bupivacaine with morphine vs. lidocaine with morphine for postoperative analgesia

BACKGROUND: Epidural infusion of morphine, usually with bupivacaine, for postoperative pain relief has proved to be safe and effective. Lidocaine with its short duration of action and low toxicity may be an alternative to bupivacaine. The clinical importance of the choice of local anaesthetic drug on mobilisation after lower abdominal surgery has not been studied previously. METHODS: A total of 52 patients was randomised to epidural infusion of morphine (1.6-4.4 micrograms.kg-1.h-1) with either lidocaine (0.44-0.98 mg.kg-1.h-1) or bupivacaine (0.10-0.28 mg.kg-1.h-1) in a double-blind fashion. The time to mobilisation, degree of pain relief, blood pressure, respiration and motor function were recorded at regular intervals postoperatively for 40 h. Serum concentrations of lidocaine, its main metabolite monoethylglycinexylidide (MEGX) and bupivacaine were measured at 3, 15 and 40 h. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the clinical characteristics between the two patient groups. There were no significant differences in the time from the end of surgery to the time the patients were able to stand without support (bupivacaine: median 24 h (interquartile range (IQR): 22-31), lidocaine: median 28 h (IQR 23-40), P = 0.15) or were able to walk without support (bupivacaine: median 46 h (IQR 28-62), lidocaine: median 48 h (IQR 35-54), P = 0.78). No significant differences between the groups were recorded with respect to pain relief, blood pressure, respiration, sedation score and motor function. The plasma concentration of lidocaine and bupivacaine increased significantly during the treatment period (P < 0.01 for both drugs), but not the concentration of MEGX. The highest venous lidocaine concentration was 17.5 mumol/l and the highest bupivacaine concentration was 18.8 mumol/l. There was a significant correlation between the concentration of both lidocaine and bupivacaine and the concentration of alpha 1-acid glycoprotein (AAG) (lidocaine: r = 0.77, P < 0.001, bupivacaine: r = 0.60, P < 0.001), suggesting that the free fraction of the drugs did not increase. No patients showed serious signs of toxicity. The epidural infusion rates remained stable in both groups during the study period. CONCLUSION: There were no clinically or statistically significant differences in the postoperative course after lower abdominal surgery in patients who received an epidural infusion of morphine combined with bupivacaine as compared to patients who received morphine with lidocaine. Further clinical studies to establish the place of lidocaine in postoperative epidural analgesia should be performed.     

Addition of 0.1% bupivacaine to buprenorphine and droperidol in patient-controlled epidural analgesia improved postoperative pain scores on coughing after gynecological surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the analgesic efficacy of additional 0.1% bupivacaine to patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) using buprenorphine and droperidol after gynecological surgery. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blinded study. SETTING: Operating theater and general ward at Jichi Medical School Hospital. PATIENTS: Thirty patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II scheduled for gynecological surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received combined general and epidural anesthesia for surgery and epidural analgesia for postoperative analgesia. Patients were assigned to receive PCEA with or without 0.1% bupivacaine. Group 1 (n = 15) received buprenorphine 20 microg and droperidol 0.1 mg diluted with saline, and group 2 (n = 15) received bupivacaine 2 mg, buprenorphine 20 microg, and droperidol 0.1 mg diluted with saline (0.1% bupivacaine solution) in a bolus dose of the PCEA, respectively. No background epidural infusion was used. MEASUREMENTS: Visual analog pain scale (VAPS) scores at rest and on coughing, and cumulative frequency of self-administrated analgesic solution in PCEA were recorded at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively. MAIN RESULTS: There were no significant differences noted between the groups in VAPS scores at rest or in cumulative volumes of PCEA solution in 24 or 48 hours postoperatively. Median VAPS scores on coughing in group 2 were significantly lower than those values in group 1 at 24 hours (36 vs 65 mm, P < .001) and 48 hours (32 vs 54 mm, P = .036) postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of 0.1% bupivacaine to PCEA using buprenorphine and droperidol provides better analgesia on coughing after gynecological surgery.     

Remifentanil compared with morphine for postoperative patient-controlled analgesia after major abdominal surgery: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This randomized, double-blinded clinical study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of remifentanil and morphine administered using intravenous (i.v.) patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for postoperative analgesia after major abdominal surgery during the first 24 postoperative hours. METHODS: Sixty-nine patients were randomly allocated into two groups, each receiving remifentanil or morphine. The first group received i.v. remifentanil PCA with a loading dose of 45 microg, a maintenance dose of 1 microg min(-1), a bolus dose of 15 microg and a lockout interval of 10 min during the first 24 postoperative hours. The second group received i.v. morphine PCA with a loading dose of 5 mg, a maintenance dose of 0.3 mg h(-1), a bolus dose of 1 mg and a lockout interval of 15 min. Age, weight, sex, history of general anaesthesia, duration of surgery and time spent in the post-anaesthesia care unit were recorded. Preoperative pulse rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressures (BP), respiration rate and arterial blood gases were collected. Pulmonary function was tested before induction of anaesthesia, as well as at 4 and 26 h after operation. Pulse rate, systolic and diastolic BP, respiration rate, arterial blood gases, sedation and visual analogue scores, and presence of side-effects in the recovery room and on the ward for 24 h were recorded at 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 18 and 24 h after operation. Total drug use, number of boluses delivered, number of boluses demanded and delivery/demand ratio were collected. RESULTS: Sixty patients were evaluated. The groups did not differ in age, weight, sex, history of general anaesthesia, duration of surgery or time spent in the recovery unit. There were also no clinically relevant differences between the groups with regard to haemodynamic and respiratory parameters as well as sedation and visual analogue scores (P > 0.05). More bolus doses were demanded and delivered and the delivery/demand ratio was significantly higher in the remifentanil group (P < 0.05). There was no finding suggesting acute opioid tolerance during remifentanil or morphine PCA. CONCLUSION: The i.v. remifentanil PCA with the chosen dosage regimen after abdominal surgery produces postoperative analgesia and has cardiovascular side-effects similar to those achieved with i.v. morphine. Special attention must be given to respiratory depression during establishment of PCA with remifentanil.     

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.     

Effect of continuous epidural 0.2% ropivacaine vs 0.2% bupivacaine on postoperative pain, motor block and gastrointestinal function after abdominal hysterectomy

We have investigated the effect of 24-h postoperative continuous epidural infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine or 0.2% bupivacaine 8 ml h-1 on pain, request for supplementary analgesics, motor block and gastrointestinal function, in a double-blind, randomized study in 60 patients undergoing open hysterectomy. There were no significant differences between groups in pain, number of patients requesting supplementary analgesics, motor block, ability to walk or time to first flatus or stool. In the subgroup of patients who received supplementary analgesics, patients in the ropivacaine group received significantly more ketorolac than patients in the bupivacaine group. Time to discharge from hospital was similar with ropivacaine and bupivacaine.