Epidural combination of ropivacaine with sufentanil for postoperative analgesia after total knee replacement: a pilot study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We assessed the analgesic efficacy of postoperative epidural infusions of ropivacaine 0.1 and 0.2% combined with sufentanil 1 microg mL(-1) in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. METHODS: Twenty-two ASA I-III patients undergoing elective total-knee replacement were included. Lumbar epidural blockade using ropivacaine 0.75% was combined with either propofol sedation or general anaesthesia for surgery. After surgery, the epidural infusion was commenced. Eleven patients in each group received either an epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% with 1 microg mL(-1) sufentanil (Group 1) or ropivacaine 0.2% with 1 microg mL(-1) sufentanil (Group 2) at a rate of 5-9 mL h(-1). All patients had access to intravenous pirinatrimide (piritramide) via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device. RESULTS: Motor block was negligible for the study duration in both groups. There was no significant difference with the 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, with the consumption of rescue analgesia or with patient satisfaction. Patients in Group 1 experienced significantly less nausea (P < 0.05) than those in Group 2. Both treatment regimens provided effective postoperative analgesia with only a minimal use of supplemental opioid PCA. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the use of ropivacaine 0.1% with 1 microg mL(-1) sufentanil for postoperative analgesia after total knee replacement as it provides efficient pain relief with no motor block of the lower limbs. In addition, compared with 0.2% ropivacaine with sufentanil, the mixture reduces local anaesthetic consumption without compromise in patient satisfaction or VAS scores. Patients even experience less nausea.     

The continuous epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% with 0.5 μg·mL−1 sufentanil provides effective postoperative analgesia after total hip replacement: a pilot study

PURPOSE: To assess the analgesic efficacy and functional outcome of postoperative epidural infusion of ropivacaine combined with sufentanil in a randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: Thirty-two ASA I-III patients undergoing elective total hip replacement (THR) were included. Lumbar epidural block using 0.75% ropivacaine was combined with either propofol sedation or general anesthesia for surgery. On arrival in the recovery room, the epidural infusion was commenced at a rate in mL calculated as follows: (height in cm - 100) x 0.1. Eleven patients received an epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% with 0.5 microg x mL(-1) sufentanil (Group R+S0.5), ten patients ropivacaine 0.1% with 0.75 microg x mL(-1) sufentanil (Group R+S0.75), and 11 patients ropivacaine 0.1% with 1 microg x mL(-1) sufentanil (Group R+S1) over a postoperative study period of 44 hr. All patients had access to iv piritramide via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device. Postel-Merle-d'Aubigné scoring system (PMA score) was assessed preoperatively, three weeks after surgery, and three months after surgery by an orthopedic surgeon blinded to study group. RESULTS: Motor block was negligible in all three groups. After eight hours of epidural infusion, sensory block had regressed completely in all patients. There was no significant difference with regard to visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (at rest: P = 0.55, on movement: P = 0.63), consumption of rescue medication (P = 0.99), patient satisfaction (P = 0.22), and the incidence of adverse events. All treatment regimens provided effective postoperative analgesia with only a minimal use of supplemental opioid PCA. There was no difference between groups regarding orthopedic PMA score (pain: P = 0.24, mobility: P = 0.65, and ability to walk: P = 0.44). CONCLUSION: Ropivacaine 0.1% with 0.5 microg x mL(-1) sufentanil for postoperative analgesia after THR provides efficient pain relief and, compared with 0.75 and 1 microg x mL(-1) sufentanil, reduces sufentanil consumption without compromise in patient satisfaction, VAS scores, and functional outcome.     

Postoperative analgesia with no motor block by continuous epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% and sufentanil after total hip replacement.

We assessed the analgesic efficacy of postoperative epidural ropivacaine 0.1% with and without sufentanil 1 microgram/mL in this prospective, randomized, single-blinded study of 30 ASA physical status I-III patients undergoing elective total hip replacement. Lumbar epidural block using 0.75% ropivacaine was combined with either propofol sedation or general anesthesia for surgery. After surgery, the epidural infusion was commenced. Fifteen patients in each group received either an epidural infusion of 0.1% ropivacaine with 1 microgram/mL sufentanil (R + S) or 0.1% ropivacaine without sufentanil (R) at a rate of 5-9 mL/h. All patients had access to i.v. piritramide via a patient-controlled analgesia device. The R + S group consumed six times less piritramide over a 48-h infusion period than the R group (median 12.7 vs 73.0 mg; P < 0.001). Motor block was negligible for the study duration in both groups. Patient satisfaction was excellent. The incidence of adverse events, such as nausea, was similar. We conclude that a continuous epidural infusion of 0.1% ropivacaine with 1 microgram/mL sufentanil is more effective than ropivacaine alone in treating pain after elective hip replacement without motor block. Implications: This is the first randomized study comparing the efficacy of the epidural combination of ropivacaine 0.1% and sufentanil 1 microgram/mL versus plain ropivacaine 0.1% in treating pain after hip replacement. We found that ropivacaine 0.1% and sufentanil 1 microgram/mL led to a sixfold reduction in opioid requirements after total hip replacement by producing a negligible motor block.     

Ropivacaine, 0.1%, plus sufentanil, 0.5 microg/ml, versus bupivacaine, 0.1%, plus sufentanil, 0.5 microg/ml, using patient-controlled epidural analgesia for labor: a double-blind comparison

BACKGROUND: This study compared the administration of 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil with that of 0.1% bupivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil via patient-controlled epidural analgesia route during labor. METHODS: Two hundred healthy pregnant women at term with a single fetus with a vertex fetal presentation were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive either 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil or 0.1% bupivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil using a patient-controlled epidural analgesia pump (5-ml bolus dose, 10-min locked-out period, no basal infusion). Pain score on a visual analog scale, Bromage score (0-3), level of sensory block, patient-controlled epidural analgesia ratio, drug use, supplemental boluses, and side effects were recorded at 30 min and then hourly. Mode of delivery, duration of first and second stages of labor, umbilical cord pH, Apgar scores of the newborn, and a measure of maternal satisfaction were recorded after delivery. RESULTS: No differences were seen between the two groups for pain scores on a visual analog scale during labor, volume of anesthetic solution used, mode of delivery, or side effects. Motor block during the first stage of labor was significantly less in the ropivacaine group than in the bupivacaine group (no motor block in 97.8 of patients vs. 88.3%, respectively; P < 0.01). Duration of the second stage of labor was shorter in the ropivacaine group (1.3 +/- 1.0 vs. 1.5 +/- 1.2 h [mean +/- SD]; P < 0.05). Maternal satisfaction was greater in the bupivacaine group (91 +/- 13 mm for contraction, 89 +/- 19 mm for delivery on a visual scale: 0 = not satisfied at all, 100 = fully satisfied) than in the ropivacaine group (84 +/- 21 and 80 +/- 25 mm; P < 0.0001). Patients in the ropivacaine group requested more supplemental boluses to achieve analgesia during the second stage of labor than those in the bupivacaine group (29.7 vs. 19.8%, respectively, requested one or more supplemental boluses; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Delivered as patient-controlled epidural analgesia, 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml sufentanil produce less motor block but are clinically less potent than 0.1% bupivacaine and 0.5 microg/ml 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.     

Quality of postoperative pain using an intraoperatively placed epidural catheter after major lumbar spinal surgery

BACKGROUND: Major spinal surgery is associated with high postoperative pain scores and opioid requirement. The aim of the current prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was to assess the reduction of opioid requirement and pain scores using an intraoperatively placed epidural catheter with infusion of 0.1% ropivacaine during the postoperative period. METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing major lumbar spinal surgery from a dorsal approach were included in this study. Before wound closure, the orthopedic surgeon inserted an epidural catheter. Postoperatively, patients were randomly assigned to receive an infusion of 12 ml/h ropivacaine, 0.1% (group R), or 12 ml/h saline (group N) after an initial bolus of 10 ml of the respective study solution. Additional pain relief was provided using an intravenous patient-controlled analgesia pump with the opioid piritramide. Patients were assessed with respect to pain scores (visual analog scale of 0-100), cumulative opioid requirement, side effects, and satisfaction with pain management. RESULTS:: Demographic data, duration of surgery, and type of surgery were comparable between groups. Pain scores were assessed as follows (group R vs. group N: 6 h: 24 +/-20 vs. 51 +/- 20, P = 0.002; 24 h: 33 +/- 19 vs. 53 +/- 27, P = 0.04; 48 h: 21 +/-17 vs. 40 +/- 26, P = 0.04; 72 h: 14 +/- 13 vs. 38 +/- 25, P = 0.02). The cumulative piritramide requirement after 72 h was 97 +/- 23 mg in group R and 157 +/-72 mg in group N (P = 0.03). The incidence of side effects was comparable between groups, and patient satisfaction was always higher in group R (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Continuous epidural infusion of 0.1% ropivacaine results in lower pain scores and opioid consumption and higher patient satisfaction when compared with placebo. Application of ropivacaine using an epidural catheter seems to be a highly effective treatment for postoperative pain after major lumbar spinal surgery.     

Postoperative analgesia after radical retropubic prostatectomy: a double-blind comparison between low thoracic epidural and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain after radical retropubic prostatectomy can be severe unless adequately treated. Low thoracic epidural analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia were compared in this double-blind, randomized study. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive either low thoracic epidural analgesia (group E) or patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (group P) for postoperative pain relief. All patients had general anesthesia combined with thoracic epidural analgesia during the operation. Postoperatively, patients in group E received an infusion of 1 mg/ml ropivacaine, 2 microg/ml fentanyl, and 2 microg/ml adrenaline, 10 ml/h during 48 h epidurally, and a placebo patient-controlled intravenous analgesia pump intravenously. Patients in group P received a patient-controlled intravenous analgesia pump with morphine intravenously and 10 ml/h placebo epidurally. Pain, the primary outcome variable, was measured using the numeric rating scale at rest (incision pain and "deep" visceral pain) and on coughing. Secondary outcome variables included gastrointestinal function, respiratory function, mobilization, and full recovery. Health-related quality of life was measured using the Short Form-36 questionnaire, and plasma concentration of fentanyl was measured in five patients to exclude a systemic effect of fentanyl. RESULTS: Incisional pain and pain on coughing were lower in group E compared with group P at 2-24 h, as was deep pain between 3 and 24 h postoperatively (P < 0.05). Maximum expiratory pressure was greater in group E at 4 and 24 h (P < 0.05) compared with group P. No difference in time to home discharge was found between the groups. The mean plasma fentanyl concentration varied from 0.2 to 0.3 ng/ml during 0-48 h postoperatively. At 1 month, the scores on emotional role, physical functioning, and general health of the Short Form-36 were higher in group E compared with group P. However, no group x time interaction was found in the Short Form-36. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found evidence for better pain relief and improved expiratory muscle function in patients receiving low thoracic epidural analgesia compared with patient-controlled analgesia for radical retropubic prostatectomy. Low thoracic epidural analgesia can be recommended as a good method for postoperative analgesia after abdominal surgery.     

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.     

Ropivacaine, 0.1%, Plus Sufentanil, 0.5 μg/ml, versus Bupivacaine, 0.1%, Plus Sufentanil, 0.5 μg/ml, Using Patient-controlled Epidural Analgesia for Labor: A Double-blind Comparison

Background: This study compared the administration of 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.5 [mu]g/ml sufentanil with that of 0.1% bupivacaine and 0.5 [mu]g/ml sufentanil via patient-controlled epidural analgesia route during labor.

Methods: Two hundred healthy pregnant women at term with a single fetus with a vertex fetal presentation were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive either 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.5 [mu]g/ml sufentanil or 0.1% bupivacaine and 0.5 [mu]g/ml sufentanil using a patient-controlled epidural analgesia pump (5-ml bolus dose, 10-min locked-out period, no basal infusion). Pain score on a visual analog scale, Bromage score (0-3), level of sensory block, patient-controlled epidural analgesia ratio, drug use, supplemental boluses, and side effects were recorded at 30 min and then hourly. Mode of delivery, duration of first and second stages of labor, umbilical cord pH, Apgar scores of the newborn, and a measure of maternal satisfaction were recorded after delivery.

Results: No differences were seen between the two groups for pain scores on a visual analog scale during labor, volume of anesthetic solution used, mode of delivery, or side effects. Motor block during the first stage of labor was significantly less in the ropivacaine group than in the bupivacaine group (no motor block in 97.8 of patients vs. 88.3%, respectively;P < 0.01). Duration of the second stage of labor was shorter in the ropivacaine group (1.3 +/- 1.0 vs. 1.5 +/- 1.2 h [mean +/- SD];P < 0.05). Maternal satisfaction was greater in the bupivacaine group (91 +/- 13 mm for contraction, 89 +/- 19 mm for delivery on a visual scale: 0 = not satisfied at all, 100 = fully satisfied) than in the ropivacaine group (84 +/- 21 and 80 +/- 25 mm;P < 0.0001). Patients in the ropivacaine group requested more supplemental boluses to achieve analgesia during the second stage of labor than those in the bupivacaine group (29.7 vs. 19.8%, respectively, requested one or more supplemental boluses;P < 0.05).     

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.     

The analgesic effect of sufentanil combined with ropivacaine 0.2% for labor analgesia: a comparison of three sufentanil doses

The combination of opioids with local anesthetics is commonly used for epidural labor analgesia. We examined whether increasing sufentanil in doses of 5, 10, and 15 microg prolonged the duration of labor analgesia produced by ropivacaine. One hundred healthy parturients in the first stage of labor who requested epidural analgesia were enrolled. Parturients were randomized to receive 12 mL ropivacaine 0.2% alone or with sufentanil 5 microg, sufentanil 10 microg, or sufentanil 15 microg. The duration of analgesia, pain score, degree of motor blockade (using a four-point Bromage scale), heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and incidence of nausea and pruritus were recorded. The mean duration of epidural analgesia was 96 +/- 32 min for patients without sufentanil, 134 +/- 27 min for Group 5 (p < 0.01 versus control), 135 +/- 33 min for Group 10 (p < 0.01 versus control), 130 +/- 33 min for Group 15 (p < 0.01 versus control) without differences among sufentanil groups. Between 30 and 90 min, the sufentanil groups (5 microg, 10 microg, and 15 microg) had lower pain scores than the control group (p < 0.01 versus control) but there were no differences among the sufentanil groups. No patient in any group had a Bromage score more than 1. No significant difference was found for opioid-related side effects. We conclude that 5-10 or 15 microg sufentanil induced a similar prolongation of analgesia when combined with ropivacaine 0.2% for initiation of labor analgesia. Implications: We studied the effect of adding one of three possible sufentanil doses to epidural ropivacaine 0.2% for labor analgesia. Adding sufentanil increased the duration of analgesia but there was no advantage in adding more than 5 microg of sufentanil.     

Epidural analgesia during labor: intermittent bolus or patient controlled administration?

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare efficacy and side effects produced by two techniques of epidural analgesia during labor: intermittent bolus and patient-controlled epidural analgesia. METHODS: Eighty parturients were enrolled in this study: forty received intermittent bolus analgesia (first bolus: 20 mg of ropivacaine 0.1% + 10 gamma of sufentanil, next bolus: 10 mg of ropivacaine 0.1% during the first 4 hours, and then 10 mg of ropivacaine 0.1% + 2.5 gamma of sufentanil each time they complained of pain), and forty parturients received PCEA (starting with a bolus of 20 mg ropivacaine 0.1% + 10 gamma sufentanil, followed by administration with a pump programmed to deliver a continuous background infusion of ropivacaine 0,1% + 0.25 gamma/ml of sufentanil at 5 ml/h and 5 ml patient-triggered boluses with a 15 min lock-out interval; insufficient analgesia was treated by extra boluses of the same ropivacaine solution). In each group the efficacy of the analgesia (verbal numerical pain scores, amount of local anesthetics consumption), labor duration, side effects and patient satisfaction have been studied. RESULTS: There were no differences between the two different epidural techniques. CONCLUSIONS: This regimen of PCEA proves a viable and safe alternative for epidural analgesia during labor.     

Pre-incisional epidural ropivacaine, sufentanil, clonidine, and (S)+-ketamine does not provide pre-emptive analgesia in patients undergoing major pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND: The concept of pre-emptive analgesia remains controversial. This prospective, randomized, and double-blind study compared epidural administration of ropivacaine 2 mg ml(-1), sufentanil 0.5 microg ml(-1), clonidine 3 microg ml(-1), and S(+)-ketamine 0.25 mg ml(-1) (study solution) given before incision with the same combination started at the end of the operation. METHODS: After testing the stability of the solution using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and examining 12 patients for possible side-effects in comparison with the epidural infusion of ropivacaine 2 mg ml(-1) and sufentanil 0.5 microg ml(-1), 30 patients undergoing major pancreatic surgery were recruited into the study. Before induction of anaesthesia, an epidural catheter was inserted (TH6-8). Patients in Group 1 received a bolus of 8 ml followed by a continuous infusion (8 ml h(-1)) of the study solution before induction of anaesthesia. In Group 2, patients received the same volume of saline before operation, the study solution was started at the end of surgery. After operation, the infusion was maintained for at least 96 h using a patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) pump in both groups. Patients were evaluated up to the seventh postoperative day for pain and side-effects. RESULTS: Visual analogue scale (VAS) values at rest were as follows: G1 vs G2: 24 h, 19 (sd 23) vs 6 (13); 48 h, 4 (10) vs 11 (21); and 72 h, 12 (22) vs 13 (21). VAS values during coughing and mobilization were also comparable. Total volume of epidural infusion was 904 (114) ml in G1 vs 892 (154) ml in G2. The incidence of side-effects (nausea, vomiting, and motor block) was low and not different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-incisional epidural analgesic infusion did not provide pre-emptive analgesia compared with administration started at the end of surgery, but both groups had low pain scores.     

The analgesic efficacy of continuous wound instillation with ropivacaine after open hepatic surgery

The analgesic efficacy of continuous local anaesthetic wound instillation after open hepatic surgery was evaluated. Forty-eight patients scheduled for elective liver surgery were assigned to receive either ropivacaine 0.25% or saline infusion at 4 ml.h(-1) for 68 h via two multi-orifice indwelling catheters placed within the musculo-fascial layer before skin closure; plasma ropivacaine concentrations were measured during the infusion. Supplemental analgesia was provided by intravenous patient-controlled analgesia morphine. Patients in the ropivacaine group had decreased mean (SD) total morphine consumption (58 (30) mg vs 86 (44) mg, p = 0.01) and less pain at rest as well as after spirometry at 4, 12, 24, 48 and 72 h postoperatively (p < 0.01). Forced vital capacity was reduced postoperatively in both groups, but the reduction was greater in the saline group at 12 and 24 h (p = 0.03). The mean plasma concentration of ropivacaine increased to 2.05 (0.78) μg.ml(-1) at the point when the infusion was terminated.     

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.     

High-volume patient-controlled epidural vs. programmed intermittent epidural bolus for labour analgesia: a randomised controlled study

The aim of neuraxial analgesia is to achieve excellent pain relief with the fewest adverse effects. The most recently introduced technique for epidural analgesia maintenance is the programmed intermittent epidural bolus. In a recent study, we compared this with patient-controlled epidural analgesia without a background infusion and found that a programmed intermittent epidural bolus was associated with less breakthrough pain, lower pain scores, higher local anaesthetic consumption and comparable motor block. However, we had compared 10 ml programmed intermittent epidural boluses with 5 ml patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses. To overcome this potential limitation, we designed a randomised, multicentre non-inferiority trial using 10 ml boluses in each group. The primary outcome was the incidence of breakthrough pain and total analgesic intake. Secondary outcomes included motor block; pain scores; patient satisfaction; and obstetric and neonatal outcomes. The trial was considered positive if two endpoints were met: non-inferiority of patient-controlled epidural analgesia with respect to breakthrough pain; and superiority of patient-controlled epidural analgesia with respect to local anaesthetic consumption. A total of 360 nulliparous women were allocated randomly to patient-controlled epidural analgesia-only or programmed intermittent epidural bolus groups. The patient-controlled group received 10 ml boluses of ropivacaine 0.12% with sufentanil 0.75 μg.ml^-1; the programmed intermittent group received 10 ml boluses supplemented by 5 ml patient-controlled boluses. The lockout period was 30 min in each group and the maximum allowed hourly local anaesthetic/opioid consumption was identical between the groups. Breakthrough pain was similar between groups (11.2% patient controlled vs. 10.8% programmed intermittent, p = 0.003 for non-inferiority). Total ropivacaine consumption was lower in the PCEA–group (mean difference 15.3 mg, p < 0.001). Motor block, patient satisfaction scores and maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar across both groups. In conclusion, patient-controlled epidural analgesia is non-inferior to programmed intermittent epidural bolus if equal volumes of patient-controlled epidural analgesia are used to maintain labour analgesia and superior with respect to local anaesthetic consumption.     

Quality of Postoperative Pain Using an Intraoperatively Placed Epidural Catheter after Major Lumbar Spinal Surgery

Background: Major spinal surgery is associated with high postoperative pain scores and opioid requirement. The aim of the current prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was to assess the reduction of opioid requirement and pain scores using an intraoperatively placed epidural catheter with infusion of 0.1% ropivacaine during the postoperative period.

Methods: Thirty patients undergoing major lumbar spinal surgery from a dorsal approach were included in this study. Before wound closure, the orthopedic surgeon inserted an epidural catheter. Postoperatively, patients were randomly assigned to receive an infusion of 12 ml/h ropivacaine, 0.1% (group R), or 12 ml/h saline (group N) after an initial bolus of 10 ml of the respective study solution. Additional pain relief was provided using an intravenous patient-controlled analgesia pump with the opioid piritramide. Patients were assessed with respect to pain scores (visual analog scale of 0-100), cumulative opioid requirement, side effects, and satisfaction with pain management.

Results: Demographic data, duration of surgery, and type of surgery were comparable between groups. Pain scores were assessed as follows (group R vs. group N: 6 h: 24 +/- 20 vs. 51 +/- 20, P = 0.002; 24 h: 33 +/- 19 vs. 53 +/- 27, P = 0.04; 48 h: 21 +/- 17 vs. 40 +/- 26, P = 0.04; 72 h: 14 +/- 13 vs. 38 +/- 25, P = 0.02). The cumulative piritramide requirement after 72 h was 97 +/- 23 mg in group R and 157 +/- 72 mg in group N (P = 0.03). The incidence of side effects was comparable between groups, and patient satisfaction was always higher in group R (P < 0.05).     

Postoperative Analgesia after Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy: A Double-blind Comparison between Low Thoracic Epidural and Patient-controlled Intravenous Analgesia

Background: Postoperative pain after radical retropubic prostatectomy can be severe unless adequately treated. Low thoracic epidural analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia were compared in this double-blind, randomized study.

Methods: Sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive either low thoracic epidural analgesia (group E) or patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (group P) for postoperative pain relief. All patients had general anesthesia combined with thoracic epidural analgesia during the operation. Postoperatively, patients in group E received an infusion of 1 mg/ml ropivacaine, 2 [mu]g/ml fentanyl, and 2 [mu]g/ml adrenaline, 10 ml/h during 48 h epidurally, and a placebo patient-controlled intravenous analgesia pump intravenously. Patients in group P received a patient-controlled intravenous analgesia pump with morphine intravenously and 10 ml/h placebo epidurally. Pain, the primary outcome variable, was measured using the numeric rating scale at rest (incision pain and "deep" visceral pain) and on coughing. Secondary outcome variables included gastrointestinal function, respiratory function, mobilization, and full recovery. Health-related quality of life was measured using the Short Form-36 questionnaire, and plasma concentration of fentanyl was measured in five patients to exclude a systemic effect of fentanyl.

Results: Incisional pain and pain on coughing were lower in group E compared with group P at 2-24 h, as was deep pain between 3 and 24 h postoperatively (P < 0.05). Maximum expiratory pressure was greater in group E at 4 and 24 h (P < 0.05) compared with group P. No difference in time to home discharge was found between the groups. The mean plasma fentanyl concentration varied from 0.2 to 0.3 ng/ml during 0-48 h postoperatively. At 1 month, the scores on emotional role, physical functioning, and general health of the Short Form-36 were higher in group E compared with group P. However, no group x time interaction was found in the Short Form-36.     

Postoperative epidural analgesia after total knee arthroplasty with sufentanil 1 microg/ml combined with ropivacaine 0.2%, ropivacaine 0.125%, or levobupivacaine 0.125%: a randomized, double-blind comparison

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Total knee replacement is associated with severe postoperative pain that, if treated insufficiently, interferes with early rehabilitation. The purpose of the present study is to compare the efficacy of ropivacaine (0.2% and 0.125%) and levobupivacaine (0.125%), all in combination with sufentanil 1 microg/mL with regard to postoperative pain relief and absence of motor block in a patient-controlled epidural analgesia setting. METHODS: The study design was randomized and double-blind. Sixty-three patients scheduled for total knee replacement under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive ropivacaine 0.2%/sufentanil 1 microg/mL (group 1), ropivacaine 0.125%/sufentanil 1 microg/mL (group 2), or levobupivacaine 0.125%/sufentanil 1 microg/mL (group 3) for postoperative epidural pain relief. Primary endpoints were numerical rating scores for pain and patient satisfaction, motor block scores, time to first demand of the patient-controlled epidural analgesia device and average hourly consumption of local anesthetic and sufentanil. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the 3 groups regarding numerical rating scores for pain, patient satisfaction, and motor block scores at any of the time intervals; time to first demand and average hourly sufentanil consumption were similar. Patients in group 1 used significantly more local anesthetic than patients in groups 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 solutions provided adequate analgesia and minimal motor block. The higher concentration of ropivacaine 0.2% was associated with a higher consumption of local anesthetic and did not result in a decrease in the consumption of sufentanil. Under the conditions of this study, patient-controlled epidural analgesia consumption of the epidural mixture was predominantly determined by sufentanil.