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

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

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.     

Ambulatory labor epidural analgesia: bupivacaine versus ropivacaine

Dilute concentrations of bupivacaine combined with fentanyl have recently been used to initiate labor epidural analgesia in an attempt to balance adequate analgesia and minimal maternal motor blockade. Similar concentrations of ropivacaine have not been evaluated. This prospective, randomized, double-blinded study was designed to compare the efficacy of 20 mL of either 0.08% bupivacaine plus 2 microg/mL fentanyl or 0.08% ropivacaine plus 2 microg/mL fentanyl to initiate ambulatory labor epidural analgesia. Forty nulliparous women in early ( 0 but < 20 at 20 min. The time (mean +/- SD) to visual analog scale score = 0 was BF (n = 18): 12.0 +/- 4.5 min and RF (n = 19): 12.4 +/- 4.0 min (P > 0.05). Spontaneous micturition was observed in 65% (13 of 20) BF compared with 100% (20 of 20) RF (P < 0.01), and ambulation was demonstrated in 75% (15 of 20) BF compared with 100% (20 of 20) RF (P < 0.03). The incidence of forceps delivery was 35% (7 of 20) BF compared with 10% (2 of 20) RF (P < 0.04). The results of this study indicate that dilute ropivacaine combined with fentanyl effectively initiates epidural analgesia while concurrently preserving maternal ability to void and ambulate. Implications: As compared with a similar dilute concentration of bupivacaine, 20 mL of dilute (0.08%) ropivacaine combined with fentanyl (2 microg/mL) effectively initiates epidural analgesia in nulliparous women in early, established labor while preserving their ability to micturate and ambulate. Of importance, it appears that a true ambulatory epidural analgesic for women in labor is now possible.     

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.     

布比卡因、罗哌卡因与芬太尼不同配伍用于连续术后硬膜外镇痛安全性探讨

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

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

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

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.     

Efficacy of ropivacaine, bupivacaine, and levobupivacaine for labor epidural analgesia

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare analgesic efficacy and intensity of motor block with continuous infusions of ropivacaine, bupivacaine, and levobupivacaine in combination with fentanyl for labor epidural analgesia. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. SETTING: Labor and delivery suite at Magee Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA. PATIENTS: 162 ASA physical status I and II, full-term, primiparous women. INTERVENTIONS: All patients received epidural labor analgesia. Epidural medication consisted of an initial bolus of 8 mL local anesthetic with fentanyl (100 microg) followed by an infusion at 12 mL/h of local anesthetic with 2 microg/mL fentanyl. Patients were allocated to one of three groups, as follows: group 1 received bolus and infusion of bupivacaine 0.125%, group 2 received bolus and infusion of levobupivacaine 0.125%, and group 3 received a bolus of ropivacaine 0.2% and infusion of ropivacaine 0.1%. MEASUREMENTS: Maternal vital signs, pain visual analog scale (VAS) score, sensory levels, and motor block (Bromage score) were recorded every hour. Duration of first and second stage of labor and mode of delivery were also recorded. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in pain VAS or Bromage motor scores among the three groups of patients at any of the measured time intervals. The time to achieve T10 sensory level and patient comfort was shorter in the ropivacaine (9.35 +/- 4.96 min) and levobupivacaine (9.56 +/- 4.71 min) groups than the bupivacaine (11.89 +/- 7.76 min) group, although this difference did not reach a statistically significant level (P = 0.06). The second stage was significantly shorter in the bupivacaine group, lasting 81.27 +/- 63.3 min, compared with the ropivacaine group (121.69 +/- 86.5 min) and the levobupivacaine (115.5 +/- 83.6 minutes) group (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: There are no significant differences in pain VAS and Bromage scores between 0.1% ropivacaine, 0.125% bupivacaine, and 0.1% levobupivacaine given for labor epidural analgesia.     

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.     

Comparison of patient-controlled epidural bolus administration of 0.1% ropivacaine and 0.1% levobupivacaine, both with 0.0002% fentanyl, for analgesia during labour

The aim of the study was to compare the relative potencies and clinical characteristics of epidural ropivacaine and levobupivacaine in labour using patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). In a randomised double-blinded study, 60 ASA I or II primigravidae requesting epidural analgesia in early labour were allocated to receive either 0.1% ropivacaine with fentanyl 0.0002% or 0.1% levobupivacaine with 0.0002% fentanyl via a patient-controlled analgesia pump. Analgesia was established with 15 ml of study solution and maintained using 5-ml boluses of study solution with a 5-min lockout interval. There were no significant differences in onset time, duration and quality of analgesia, motor and sensory blockade, local anaesthetic consumption, mode of delivery, neonatal outcome or maternal satisfaction between the groups. We conclude that 0.1% ropivacaine with 0.0002% fentanyl and 0.1% levobupivacaine with 0.0002% fentanyl are clinically indistinguishable for labour analgesia and appear pharmacologically equipotent when using PCEA.     

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 epidural analgesia with 0.125% ropivacaine with fentanyl versus 0.125% bupivacaine with fentanyl during labor

We previously found that the extent of an epidural motor block produced by 0.125% ropivacaine was clinically indistinguishable from 0.125% bupivacaine in laboring patients. By adding fentanyl to the 0. 125% ropivacaine and bupivacaine solutions in an attempt to reduce hourly local anesthetic requirements, we hypothesized that differences in motor block produced by the two drugs may become apparent. Fifty laboring women were randomized to receive either 0. 125% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg/mL or an equivalent concentration of bupivacaine/fentanyl using patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with settings of: 6-mL/hr basal rate, 5-mL bolus, 10-min lockout, 30-mL/h dose limit. Analgesia, local anesthetic use, motor block, patient satisfaction, and side effects were assessed until the time of delivery. No differences in verbal pain scores, local anesthetic use, patient satisfaction, or side effects between groups were observed; however, patients administered ropivacaine/fentanyl developed significantly less motor block than patients administered bupivacaine/fentanyl. Ropivacaine 0.125% with fentanyl 2 microg/mL produces similar labor analgesia with significantly less motor block than an equivalent concentration of bupivacaine/fentanyl. Whether this statistical reduction in motor block improves clinical outcome or is applicable to anesthesia practices which do not use the PCEA technique remains to be determined. Implications: By using a patient-controlled epidural analgesia technique, ropivacaine 0.125% with fentanyl 2 microg/mL produces similar analgesia with significantly less motor block than a similar concentration of bupivacaine with fentanyl during labor. Whether this statistical reduction in motor block improves clinical outcome or is applicable to anesthesia practices which do not use the patient-controlled epidural analgesia technique remains to be determined.     

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.     

Comparison of ropivacaine 0.1% and 0.2% with bupivacaine 0.2% for single-shot caudal anaesthesia in children

We compared analgesic efficacy and degree of motor block induced by ropivacaine 0.1% (R 0.1) and 0.2% (R 0.2) vs. bupivacaine 0.2% (B 0. 2) after caudal anaesthesia in children. Total and free plasma concentrations were measured after caudal injection. Duration of caudal analgesia (median/range) was significantly shorter in group R 0.1 (1.7 h/0.2-6 h) than in group R 0.2 (4.5 h/1.7-6 h) or group B 0. 2 (4 h/1-6 h) (P<0.05). Motor block in the first 2 h postoperatively was significantly less for both ropivacaine groups compared with bupivacaine (P<0.05). Peak plasma concentrations after ropivacaine 0.2% were higher and protein binding lower than after bupivacaine 0.2% (P<0.05). We conclude that caudal analgesia with ropivacaine 0.1% is less effective and of shorter duration than that of ropivacaine 0.2%, whereas ropivacaine 0.2% provides pain relief similar to bupivacaine 0.2%. Motor block in the early postoperative period is less with ropivacaine than with bupivacaine.     

Epidural anesthesia with ropivacaine vs. bupivacaine in continuous perfusion for the treatment of labor pains

OBJECTIVE: To compare the analgesic efficacy and extent of motor block when 0.125% ropivacaine or 0.125% bupivacaine were given in continuous perfusion through an epidural catheter during labor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 60 ASA I-II women, each carrying a single fetus at full term and in spontaneous labor. The patients were distributed in 2 groups. Women in the ropivacaine group (R) (n = 30) received 8 mL of 0.2% ropivacaine for analgesic induction, followed by a continuous perfusion of 10 mL/h at 0.125%. The bupivacaine group (B) (n = 30) received bupivacaine at the same concentration and infusion rate. The objective of analgesia was to achieve a score less than 3 on a visual analog pain scale. If analgesia was inadequate, a 5 mL bolus of 0.2% ropivacaine or bupivacaine, depending on group, was administered. The motor block was evaluated on an abbreviated Bromage scale and we recorded hemodynamic stability, fetal status, type of delivery and the total dose of local anesthetic. RESULTS: Analgesia and hemodynamics were similar in both groups. Group R required a larger number of additional boluses, although the difference was not statistically significant. A motor block was observed in 8 patients in group B and 1 in group R (p < 0.05). Fetal status was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Both drugs were equally effective for controlling the pain accompanying labor, such that ropivacaine offered no advantage over bupivacaine in that regard. Ropivacaine's reduced motor block effect at the doses administered may offer an advantage in some situations, such as when a walking epidural is provided.     

The postoperative analgesic efficacy of wound instillation with ropivacaine 0.1% versus ropivacaine 0.2%

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess the influence of ropivacaine concentration on wound instillation-induced postoperative analgesia following total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind study. SETTING: Large referral hospital. PATIENTS: 40 ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. INTERVENTIONS: A standard general anesthetic was administered. In all cases surgery was performed via a Pfannenstiel incision. On completion of the surgery, a multi-orifice, 20-gauge epidural catheter was placed above the fascia such that the tip was sited at the point that demarcated 50% of the length of the surgical wound. Thereafter, the catheter was connected to an electronic patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device programmed to deliver 9 mL of drug, with a lockout time of 60 minutes and no basal infusion. Patients were randomized to receive PCA with ropivacaine 0.1% (Group 0.1) or ropivacaine 0.2% (Group 0.2). During the first 6 postoperative hours, a co-investigator administered "rescue" morphine (2 mg IV). Thereafter, "rescue" meperidine 1 mg/kg was administered on patient request. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The number of attempts to activate the PCA device and actual PCA instillations during the 24 hour study period were similar between the groups. The number of 2 mg "rescue" morphine dosages administered was 4.3 +/- 1.7 versus 4.4 +/- 2.5 for the Group 0.1 and Group 0.2, respectively. For Group 0.1 and Group 0.2, the total dose of "rescue" morphine administered during the first 6 postoperative hours was 8.7 mg +/- 3.6 versus 9.1 mg +/- 5, respectively. "Rescue" meperidine administration during the subsequent 18 hours was similar between the groups. Throughout the study period, pain scores were similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: With a pre-set volume, varying the concentration of ropivacaine (0.1% versus 0.2%) does not affect the analgesic efficacy of wound instillation following total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.     

A comparison of 0.1% and 0.2% ropivacaine and bupivacaine combined with morphine for postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia after major abdominal surgery

Ropivacaine (ROPI), which is less toxic and produces less motor block than bupivacaine (BUPI), seems attractive for epidural analgesia. Few data are available concerning dose requirements of epidural ROPI when combined with morphine. In this study, we compared the dose requirements and side effects of ROPI and BUPI combined with small-dose morphine after major abdominal surgery. Postoperatively, 60 patients were randomly allocated (double-blinded manner) to four groups: patient-controlled epidural analgesia with the same settings using 0.1% or 0.2% solution of ROPI or BUPI combined with an epidural infusion of 0.1 mg/h of morphine. Pain scores, side effects, motor block, and local anesthetic consumption were measured for 60 h. Pain scores and the incidence of side effects did not differ among the groups. Consumption of ROPI and BUPI were similar in both 0.1% groups. Doubling the concentration significantly reduced the consumption (milliliters) of BUPI (P < 0.05) but not of ROPI. Consequently, using ROPI 0.2% significantly increased the dose administered as compared with ROPI 0.1% (ROPI 0.1% = 314 +/- 151 mg and ROPI 0.2% = 573 +/- 304 mg at Hour 48; P < 0.05). Patient-controlled epidural analgesia with the 0.1% or 0.2% solution of ROPI or BUPI combined with epidural morphine resulted in comparable analgesia. As compared with ROPI 0.1%, the use of ROPI 0.2% increased consumption of local anesthetic without improving analgesia. IMPLICATIONS: Small-dose (0.1%) ropivacaine and bupivacaine have similar potency and result in comparable analgesia and incidence of side effects.     

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.     

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor using ropivacaine and fentanyl provides better maternal satisfaction with less local anesthetic requirement

Purpose To test the hypothesis that patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) using ropivacaine and fentanyl provides better maternal satisfaction and less anesthetic requirement than conventional continuous epidural infusion (CEI) during labor, we studied 58 uncomplicated parturients (singleton, vertex presentation).Methods After establishing effective epidural analgesia with 11 ml of 0.2% ropivacaine, all parturients were randomly divided into one of two groups: the PCEA group (n = 29) or the CEI group (n = 29). In the PCEA group, the pump was initiated to deliver a basal infusion at 6 ml·h⁻¹ and a demand dose of 5 ml; the lockout interval was 10 min, and there was a 31 ml·h⁻¹ limit. The drugs used were 0.1% ropivacaine + fentanyl 2 µg·ml⁻¹. In the CEI group, epidural analgesia was maintained with the same solution as the PCEA group at a constant rate of 10 ml·h⁻¹. If parturients requested additional analgesia in the CEI group, we added 8 ml of epidural 0.2% ropivacaine without fentanyl.Results Parturients’ demographic data, such as duration of labor, mode of delivery, Apgar score, and umbilical arterial pH did not differ between the two groups. However, the hourly requirement of ropivacaine was significantly less in the PCEA group than in the CEI group (9.3 ± 2.5 vs. 17.6 ± 7.6 mg·h⁻¹; P < 0.05). Parturients’ satisfaction assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale tended to be higher in the PCEA group than in the CEI group. Side effects such as nausea, hypotension, and itching were similar for the two groups.Conclusion We found that PCEA was an effective means of providing optimal analgesia, with better satisfaction during labor and less local anesthetic requirement.     

Comparison of ropivacaine and bupivacaine for epidural analgesia during labor]

OBJECTIVES: To compare the analgesic efficacy and level of motor block using two local anesthetics, ropivacaine and bupivacaine, during labor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty nulliparous women were enrolled during labor after full-term pregnancies. They were randomly assigned to receive epidural analgesia with ropivacaine (group R) or bupivacaine (group B). Group R patients received 10 ml of 0.18% ropivacaine with 5 microgram/ml of fentanyl followed by continuous epidural infusion of 0.1% ropivacaine with 2 microgram/ml of fentanyl at a rate of 10 ml/h. Group B patients received 10 ml of 0.15% bupivacaine with 5 microgram/ml of fentanyl followed by continuous epidural perfusion of 0.0625% bupivacaine with 2 microgram/ml of fentanyl at the same rate. Pain intensity was assessed on a visual analog scale, motor blockade on a Bromage scale, and level of sensory block at different moments. We also recorded total doses of local anesthetic employed during continuous epidural infusion, manner of final delivery, Apgar score, degree of maternal satisfaction and side effects. RESULTS: The demographic and delivery characteristics were similar in both groups. We found no statistically significant differences between the two groups for level of motor blockade, which was nil for 29 patients (96.66%) in group R and 28 patients (93.33%) in group B. No differences in degree of pain or level of sensory block (T8-T10 in both groups) were observed.The total doses of local anesthetic used were similar at 23.7 +/- 11.6 mg in group R and 16.5 +/- 7.3 mg in group B (non-significant difference). Nor did we find differences in manner of delivery, neonatal Apgar scores, degree of maternal satisfaction or side effects. CONCLUSION: Ropivacaine and bupivacaine are equally effective for epidural analgesia during labor at the doses used and they do not cause a relevant level of motor blockade.