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

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

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.     

Lidocaine versus ropivacaine for continuous interscalene brachial plexus block after open shoulder surgery

BACKGROUND: This study compared the postoperative infusion of 1% lidocaine and 0.2% ropivacaine for continuous interscalene analgesia in patients undergoing open shoulder surgery. METHODS: Forty patients undergoing open shoulder surgery received an interscalene brachial plexus block with 30 ml of either 1.5% lidocaine (n = 20) or 0.5% ropivacaine (n = 20), followed by a continuous patient-controlled interscalene analgesia with 1% lidocaine or 0.2% ropivacaine, respectively. A blinded observer recorded the quality of analgesia and recovery of motor function during the first 24 h of infusion. RESULTS: Onset of the block occurred after 7.5 (5-40) min with lidocaine and 30 (10-60) min with ropivacaine (P = 0.0005). Postoperative pain intensity was higher with lidocaine than ropivacaine for the first 8 h of infusion. The ratio between boluses given and demanded from the pump was 0.5 (0.13-0.7) with lidocaine and 0.7 (0.4-1.0) with ropivacaine (P = 0.005). Rescue IV tramadol was required during the first 24 h of infusion by 16 patients of the lidocaine group (84%) and eight patients of the ropivacaine group (46%) (P = 0.05). At the 16 h and 24 h observation times a larger proportion of patients receiving ropivacaine had complete regression of motor block (70% and 95%) than patients receiving lidocaine (50% and 55%) (P = 0.05 and P = 0.013, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although 1% lidocaine can be effectively used for postoperative patient-controlled interscalene analgesia, 0.2% ropivacaine provides better pain relief and motor function.     

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.     

The effects of patient-controlled epidural analgesia with background infusion after abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND: Although patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) is widely known to provide good pain control after abdominal surgery, it has not been popular in Japan. We evaluated the effects of PCEA with background infusion after major abdominal surgery. METHODS: Ninety patients scheduled for abdominal surgery were randomly allocated to two groups by treatment with postoperative epidural analgesia: infuser group (n = 48); continuous infusion 5 ml.hr-1 or PCEA group (n = 42); background infusion 5 ml.hr-1, PCEA 3 ml and lock out 30 min. Microject (Sorenson Medical Co, U.S.A.) was used for PCEA machine. 0.2% ropivacaine 100 ml with fentanyl 500 micrograms was administered into the epidural space in both groups. RESULTS: Postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) at rest and coughing were about 10 mm and 40 mm in both group, respectively, and there were no significant differences between the groups. NSAIDs were effective for rescue analgesia in infuser group to improve postoperative pain as PCEA. Vomiting and sedation were more frequent in infuser group than in PCEA group. Empty battery and machine troubles of unknown origin were observed in 2 and 4 patients, respectively in PCEA group. CONCLUSIONS: PCEA with background infusion could improve the management of postoperative pain, and adequate program of PCEA is important to reduce postoperative pain and its side effects.     

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.     

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.     

Anesthetic management of a patient with dilated cardiomyopathy under total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and ketamine combined with continuous epidural analgesia

We report our experience with total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and ketamine combined with continuous epidural analgesia in a 72-year-old-male patient with dilated cardiomyopathy scheduled for a total prostatectomy. After premedication with atropine 0.5 mg and pethidine 35 mg, anesthesia was induced with ketamine 50 mg, fentanyl 0.1 mg and using a step down method of propofol (6-->4-->2 mg.kg-1.hr-1). After hemodynamic parameters had been stabilized, the trachea was intubated. Then, 1.5% lidocaine 6 ml was injected through an epidural catheter, placed at the L 1-2 intervertebral space. Anesthesia was maintained with continuous infusion of propofol 1 mg.kg-1.hr-1 and ketamine 1 mg.kg-1.hr-1, and continuous epidural analgesia with 1.5% lidocaine 2 ml.hr-1. Hemodynamics remained stable throughout the operative procedure. No postoperative complications occurred. TIVA with propofol and ketamine in combination with epidural analgesia is useful for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy in order to maintain stable hemodynamics during anesthesia.     

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.     

The effect of continuous epidural infusion of a combination of 1% mepivacaine and buprenorphine for post-operative pain relief

Using a portable 2 ml.hr-1 type infusor (Baxter Infusor), the effect of continuous epidural infusion for post-operative pain relief for 72 hours was studied in 32 patients after upper abdominal surgery. The patients were randomly allocated into four groups: Group 1 (n = 8) received continuous epidural infusion of 1% mepivacaine and buprenorphine 0.2 mg (48 ml.hr-1); group 2 (n = 8) 1% mepivacaine and buprenorphine 0.4 mg (48 ml.hr-1); Group 3 (n = 8) saline and buprenorphine 0.2 mg (48 ml.hr-1); Group 4 (n = 8) saline and buprenorphine 0.4 mg (48 ml.hr-1). The effect was evaluated at intervals of 12-hour until 72 hours postoperatively. Patients received supplemental buprenorphine intramuscularly as needed. In each period during the 12 to 72-hour after operation, the percentage of the patients who needed no supplemental buprenorphine was 62.5-100%, which is higher than during the 0 to 12-hour (25.0%). The percentage of the patients who showed no pain on coughing and changing in position in Group 1 and 2 was higher than in Group 3 and 4 in each period (P less than 0.05 12-24 and 36-72 hr). Continuous epidural infusion using Baxter Infusor with the combination of 1% mepivacaine and buprenorphine is effective for alleviating postoperative pain during the 12 to 72 hours after the operation, and for prevention of pulmonary complications.     

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。     

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.     

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.     

Neurological deficit following lumbar epidural anesthesia with ropivacaine

A 38-year-old woman with placenta previa was scheduled for cesarean section. She had no abnormal medical history including neurological deficit before the operation. Prior to general anesthesia, an epidural catheter was inserted in the L2-3 interspace for postoperative analgesia. There was no difficulty in threading the catheter. No pain, paresthesia or bleeding was elicited at any time. After a test dose of 1% lidocaine 1 ml, a bolus of 0.75% ropivacaine 12 ml was injected through the epidural catheter. At the end of the operation, a continuous epidural infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine (the pump speed of 6 ml x h(-1)) was started. On the second postoperative day, sudden sensory loss level to L2 (right lower extremity), L3 (left one) and flaccid paralysis of bilateral lower extremities occurred. MRI and myelogram showed no abnormality of the spinal cord. Her neurological deficit showed slight improvement but her sensory and motor paralysis still remained. Neurotoxicity of ropivacaine may be the cause of this neurological deficit.     

Cytopathologic examination of epidural catheter for postoperative analgesia. Pathophysiology and clinical management

AIM: The authors performed a prospective study in a series of patients undergoing combined general and epidural anaesthesia for major abdominal surgery in order to define if the epidural catheter inserted for postoperative analgesia induced in the short-term (7-8 postoperative days) any cytopathologically appreciable inflammatory response. METHODS: From April to September 2001, 20 consecutive patients undergoing combined general and epidural anaesthesia for major abdominal surgery at the National Cancer Research Institute and Villa Scassi Hospital (Genoa), were recruited after obtaining Institutional Ethics Committee approval and written consent from the patients. The standard technique for epidural anaesthesia was adopted. Preoperatively, all patients received peridurally a dose test of 3 ml of 2% lidocaine (60 mg) followed by 5 ml of ropivacaine 0.75%, and a continuous infusion of ropivacaine 0.375% (5-10 ml/h; maximal dose=20 ml) intraoperatively. As regards the therapeutic management of postoperative analgesia, patients received a continuous infusion of ropivacaine 0.2% for at least 48 hours and supplemental bolus (2 mg/die) of morphine hydrochloride. The epidural catheter was always removed between the 7th and 8th postoperative day, and it was examined by the pathologist according to the Thin Prep 2000 procedure. RESULTS: The cytopathologic examination of the tip of the epidural catheter gave the following findings: amorphous material without cells (n=10); rare granulocytes and histiocytes (n=6); stromal cells (n=3), and rare lymphocytes (n=1). CONCLUSION: We were unable to detect any cytopathologically appreciable inflammatory response at the tip of the epidural catheter which could have suggested the occurrence of inflammation in the epidural tissues. Given the positive results of prophylactic epidural administration of small doses of corticosteroids in the reduction of postepidural anaesthesia back pain and their direct membrane action on nociceptive C-fibers, this kind of backache seems to be related to the stimulations of such nociceptors more than to a catheter-related inflammatory response of epidural tissues with possible evolution in peridural fibrosis, as reported following surgical intervention for lumbosacral disease.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Comparison of epidural,continuous femoral block and intraarticular analgesia after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare three locoregional techniques of pain management after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: Sixty ASA I-II subjects were enrolled after obtaining written informed consent. Patients were randomly allocated to three groups of 20 subjects. The first group (EPI) received epidural ropivacaine 0.2% plus sufentanil 0.2 micro g ml-1, at 5 ml h-1. Patients in the second group (CFB) were given a continuous infusion of the same analgesic mixture through a femoral catheter. The third group (IA) received a continuous intraarticular infusion of ropivacaine 0.2% plus sufentanil 0.2 micro g ml-1, at 5 ml h-1. All subjects were allowed PCA boluses of 5 ml of local anesthetic. Analgesia was assessed for 36 h after the end of surgery by means of a visual analog scale (VAS) and a verbal scale (VS), as well as the number of PCA boluses administered and the amount of supplementary i.v. ketorolac, if given. RESULTS: The VAS and VS scores were significantly higher in group IA during the 24 h following surgery. Ketorolac requirement was higher in group IA throughout the postoperative observation. Adverse effects were similar in all groups except for urinary retention, which was significantly more frequent in group EPI. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that either epidural or continuous femoral nerve block provide adequate pain relief in patients who undergo ACLR, whereas intraarticular analgesia seems unable to cope satisfactorily with the analgesic requirements of this surgical procedure.     

A comparison of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia with epidural anesthesia for postoperative pain relief after transurethral resection of the prostate

BACKGROUND: We compared combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (S group) and epidural anesthesia (E group) in terms of pain control after transurethral resection of the prostate (TUR-P). METHODS: All 32 patients received 0.2% ropivacaine at a rate of 2 ml x hr(-1) by a portable disposable pump postoperatively. RESULTS: S group was superior to E group in urethral pain control within three hours after operation. E group was superior to S group in decrease of back pain over six hours after operation. Fifteen patients (47%) suffered from irritability or low back pain and needed rescue analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: Our result indicates that 0.2% ropivacaine at a rate of 2 ml x hr(-1) is not satisfactory to relieve the postoperative pain. Long acting local anesthetics for spinal anesthesia are not suitable for TUR-P. Supplemental administration of opioid to epidural space or higher rate of continuous epidural infusor after operation might be better analgesic choice for TUR-P.