Epidural Bupivacaine-Morphine Analgesia versus Patient-controlled Analgesia following Abdominal Aortic Surgery: Analgesic, Respiratory, and Myocardial Effects

Background: The efficacy and effects of epidural analgesia compared with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) have not been reported in patients undergoing major vascular surgery. We compared the effects of epidural bupivacaine-morphine with those of intravenous PCA morphine after elective infrarenal aortic surgery.

Methods: Forty patients classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 2 or 3 received general anesthesia plus postoperative PCA using morphine sulfate (group PCA; n = 21) or general anesthesia plus perioperative epidural morphine - bupivacaine (group EPI; n = 19) during a period of 48 h. During operation, EPI patients received 0.05 mg/kg epidural morphine and 5 ml 0.25% bupivacaine followed by an infusion of 0.125% bupivacaine with 0.1% morphine (0.1 mg/ml); group PCA received 0.1 mg/kg intravenous morphine sulfate. Continuous electrocardiographic monitoring (V4 and V5 leads) was performed from the night before surgery until 48 h afterward. Respiratory inductive plethysmographic data were recorded after tracheal extubation. Visual analog pain scores at rest and after movement were performed every 4 h after extubation.

Results: Nurse-administered intravenous morphine and time to tracheal extubation were less in group EPI, as were visual analog pain scores at rest and after movement from 20 to 48 h. Complications and the duration of intensive care unit and hospital stay were comparable. There was a similar, low incidence of postoperative apneas, slow respiratory rates, desaturation, and S-T segment depression.     

Effects of epidural bupivacaine and epidural morphine on bowel function and pain after hysterectomy

A comparison was made of the effects of continuous epidural analgesia with bupivacaine and intermittent epidural morphine on bowel function after abdominal hysterectomy. The duration of postoperative ileus was assessed as the time from the end of operation to the first postoperative passage of flatus and feces. Twenty-two patients were randomly allocated to two equal groups. An "epidural morphine" group received general anesthesia and epidural morphine for postoperative pain relief, and an "epidural bupivacaine" group was given combined general anesthesia and epidural anesthesia with 0.5% bupivacaine intraoperatively and epidural analgesia with 0.25% bupivacaine postoperatively. Epidural morphine or bupivacaine was given for 42 h postoperatively. Pain intensity (visual analog scale) was low in both groups, but lower (P less than 0.05) in the epidural bupivacaine group. The time to first passage of flatus was 22 +/- 16 h in the epidural bupivacaine group and 56 +/- 22 h in the epidural morphine group (P less than 0.001). The time to first postoperative passage of feces was shorter (P less than 0.05) in the former than in the latter 57 +/- 44 h vs 92 +/- 22 h). The patients of the epidural bupivacaine group started intake of oral fluids earlier (P less than 0.01) and to a greater extent (P less than 0.05) than those in the epidural morphine group. It is concluded that the duration of postoperative ileus after hysterectomy is shorter when epidural bupivacaine is given for postoperative pain relief than when this is achieved by epidural morphine.     

Influence of bupivacaine as an adjuvant to epidural morphine for analgesia after cesarean section

The effect of the addition of bupivacaine to epidural morphine (EM) on postoperative analgesia was evaluated in 150 patients after cesarean section performed under epidural anesthesia with carbonated lidocaine. Fifty patients received 3 mg EM without bupivacaine, 50 received 3 mg EM with 0.125% bupivacaine, 25 received 5 mg EM without bupivacaine, and 25 patients received 5 mg EM with 0.125% bupivacaine. Patients were assessed for quality and duration of postoperative analgesia, as well as the incidence and severity of side effects. The addition of bupivacaine did not affect the quality or duration of analgesia afforded by EM and did not influence the incidence or severity of side effects. Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference in the analgesia obtained by patients receiving 3- and 5-mg doses of EM with or without bupivacaine.     

Comparison of intravenous or epidural patient-controlled analgesia in the elderly after major abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with intravenous morphine and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), using an opioid either alone or in combination with a local anesthetic, are two major advances in the management of pain after major surgery. However, these techniques have been evaluated poorly in elderly people. This prospective, randomized study compared the effectiveness on postoperative pain and safety of PCEA and PCA after major abdominal surgery in the elderly patient. METHODS: Seventy patients older than 70 yr of age and undergoing major abdominal surgery were assigned randomly to receive either combined epidural analgesia and general anesthesia followed by postoperative PCEA, using a mixture of 0.125% bupivacaine and sufentanil (PCEA group), or general anesthesia followed by PCA with intravenous morphine (PCA group). Pain intensity was tested three times daily using a visual analog scale. Postoperative evaluation included mental status, cardiorespiratory and gastrointestinal functions, and patient satisfaction scores. RESULTS: Pain relief was better at rest (P = 0.001) and after coughing (P = 0.002) in the PCEA group during the 5 postoperative days. Satisfaction scores were better in the PCEA group. Although incidence of delirium was comparable in the PCA and PCEA groups (24% vs. 26%, respectively), mental status was improved on the fourth and fifth postoperative days in the PCEA group. The PCEA group recovered bowel function more quickly than did the PCA group. Cardiopulmonary complications were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: After major abdominal surgery in the elderly patient, patient-controlled analgesia, regardless of the route (epidural or parenteral), is effective. The epidural route using local anesthetics and an opioid provides better pain relief and improves mental status and bowel activity.     

Ropivacaine epidural anesthesia and analgesia versus general anesthesia and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine in the perioperative management of hip replacement. Ropivacaine Hip Replacement Multicenter Study Group.

The aim of our study was to compare epidural anesthesia and analgesia (EDA) with ropivacaine versus general anesthesia followed by IV patient-controlled analgesia with morphine (GA/PCA) after hip replacement regarding pain, side effects, and discharge from the postanesthesia care unit. After ethics committee approval, randomization, and informed consent, 90 patients were enrolled. In Group EDA, epidural anesthesia (ropivacaine 10 mg/mL, 15-25 mL) was followed by an epidural infusion (2 mg/mL, 4-6 mL/h for 24 h, plus top-up doses of 6-10 mL for 48 h). GA/PCA patients received general anesthesia (isoflurane/N2O/fentanyl) followed by IV patient-controlled analgesia with morphine postoperatively. Pain was assessed by using visual analog scales (0-100 mm) at rest and during physiotherapy. Pain at rest was less in the EDA (n = 43) group than in the GA/PCA (n = 45) group (at 10 h: 11.8+/-12.9 vs. 28.4+/-17.1 [P< 0.001]; at 24 h: 14.3+/-11.7 vs. 24.0+/-17 [P<0.01]; in 48 h: 14.3+/-9.3 vs. 21.1+/-17.4 [P = 0.1]). Whereas EDA patients were deemed ready for discharge from the postanesthesia care unit earlier than GA/PCA patients (5.6+/-8.9 vs. 39.7+/-41.5 min), the actual discharge time was comparable. The median time for first passage of flatus was shorter in the EDA group than in the GA/PCA group (26 vs. 47 h). Nausea and vomiting were more common in the GA/PCA group than in the EDA group (16% vs. 28% and 11% vs. 22%, respectively), whereas hypotension (11% vs. 4%) and bradycardia (14% vs. 2%) were less frequent. Under the conditions of the present study, EDA with ropivacaine provided pain control after hip replacement superior to that provided by IV patient-controlled analgesia with morphine, particularly during the first 24 h. Both approaches to pain management were equally safe. IMPLICATIONS: Compared with general anesthesia and postoperative IV patient-controlled analgesia with morphine, epidural anesthesia and analgesia with the new local anesthetic ropivacaine enables patients to be discharged sooner from a postanesthesia care unit and provides superior pain relief during the first 24 h after hip replacement.     

Epidural anesthesia during upper abdominal surgery provides better postoperative analgesia

Since repeated noxious stimuli may sensitize neuropathic pain receptors of the spinal cord, we tested the hypothesis that the appropriate blockade of surgical stimuli with epidural anesthesia during upper abdominal surgery would be beneficial for postoperative analgesia. Thirty-six adult patients undergoing either elective gastrectomy or open cholecystectomy were randomly allocated to receive either inhalational general anesthesia alone (group G) or epidural anesthesia along with light general anesthesia (group E) throughout the surgery. Postoperative pain management consisted of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with bupivacaine accompanied by the continuous infusion of buprenorphine. To assess postoperative pain, a visual analogue scale (VAS) was employed at 2, 24, and 48 h postoperatively. While there was no significant difference in the bupivacaine dose, more patients undergoing gastrectomy in group G required supplemental analgesics than those in group E, and the VAS scores in group E demonstrated significantly better postoperative analgesia compared to group G after both types of surgery. Thus, an appropriate epidural blockade during upper abdominal surgery likely provides better postoperative pain relief.     

Postoperative wound oxygen tension with epidural or intravenous analgesia: a prospective,randomized, single-blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Adequate tissue oxygen tension is an essential requirement for surgical-wound healing. The authors tested the hypothesis that epidural anesthesia and analgesia increases wound tissue oxygen tension compared with intravenous morphine analgesia. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, blind clinical study, the authors allocated patients having major abdominal surgery (n = 32) to receive combined general and epidural anesthesia with postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia (epidural group, n = 16), or general anesthesia alone with postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (intravenous group, n = 16). An oxygen sensor and a temperature sensor were placed subcutaneously in the wound before closure. Wound oxygen tension (P(w)O(2)) and temperature were measured continuously for 24 h. Other variables affecting wound tissue oxygenation and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores were also documented. RESULTS: Despite epidural patients having lower body temperatures at the end of surgery (35.7 +/- 0.3) versus 36.3 +/- 0.5 degrees C, = 0.004), they had significantly higher mean P(w)O(2) over the 24 h period, compared with the intravenous group (64.4 +/- 14 vs. 50.7 +/- 15) mmHg, mean (SD), 95% CI difference, -22 to -5, = 0.002). Area under the P(w)O(2) -24 h time curve was also significantly higher in the epidural group (930 +/- 278 vs. 749 +/- 257) mmHg x h, 95% CI difference -344 to -18, = 0.03). VAS pain scores at rest and moving were significantly lower in the epidural group at all times. CONCLUSION: Epidural anesthesia and postoperative analgesia for major abdominal surgery increases wound tissue oxygen tension compared with general anesthesia and intravenous morphine analgesia.     

Comparison of different methods of postoperative analgesia after thoracotomy

Fifty-one patients scheduled for thoracotomy were included in a study involving five different methods of postoperative analgesia. Forty patients were randomly divided into: Group C, receiving intramuscular oxycodone on request following an intraoperative intercostal block; Group IC, intercostal blocks with 0.5% bupivacaine performed prior to surgery, 6 h later and on the first postoperative morning: Group EB, epidural bupivacaine as a continuous infusion of 0.25% bupivacaine (5 ml h-1); Group EM4 epidural morphine 4 mg injected prior to surgery and on the first postoperative morning. In addition, a fifth group (Group EM6) of 11 patients received 6 mg of epidural morphine timed as in Group EM4, but these patients were automatically scheduled to be observed in the ICU. Additional intramuscular oxycodone was given on request to all patients. Group EB, EM4 and EM6 had lower numbers of requests than Group C. Pain intensity score was lowest (2.5 on a scale from 0 to 10, 3 h postoperatively) in Group EM6, and there was a statistically significant difference in pain intensity at 3 h between EM4 and EM6. The evaluation of cooperation and pain by the physical therapist revealed no differences between the groups. Postoperative blood-gas analyses contained slightly elevated PCO2 values (6.0-7.3 kPa) in all groups. Postoperatively, only Group EB was devoid of PCO2 values above 7.3 kPa. Urinary retention was a common complication in the patients receiving epidural analgesia, occurring most frequently in Group EM6; 10 of the 11 patients had to be catheterized.     

Postoperative pulmonary complications: general anesthesia with postoperative parenteral morphine compared with epidural analgesia

In a prospective study, patients undergoing abdominal cancer surgery were randomly allocated to receive either general anesthesia with fentanyl intravenously and postoperative analgesia with parenteral morphine (GA group) or general anesthesia combined with epidural bupivacaine and epidural morphine for postoperative pain relief (EP group). Analgesia was tested on a visual pain scale. Pulmonary complications were evaluated by clinical complications, blood gas analysis, x-ray film changes, and pulmonary volumes (vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 second). Measurements were performed on the day before the operation and on the first 5 postoperative days. In the EP group the pain relief was significantly better on the first day (p less than 0.03). Whatever the criteria used, the rates of pulmonary complications were similar in the two groups: clinical complications 21% versus 26%, radiologic complications 50% versus 64% for GA and EP groups, respectively. Postoperative PaO2 and spirometric values were similar in the two groups. Postoperative epidural analgesia may improve the patient's comfort but does not decrease the incidence of pulmonary complications.     

Combined epidural and general anesthesia versus general anesthesia for abdominal aortic surgery

The goal of this randomized study of high-risk surgical patients was to determine whether intraoperative thoracic epidural anesthesia in combination with light general anesthesia alters postoperative morbidity when compared to a standard technique of "balanced" general anesthesia. A total of 173 patients scheduled for abdominal aortic reconstruction were admitted to the study; 86 were to receive "balanced" general anesthesia (group 1) and 87 thoracic epidural anesthesia in combination with light general anesthesia (group 2). Preoperative evaluation included standard clinical tools, dipyridamole thallium gammatomography, and radionuclide angiography. In these patients, all of whom had peripheral artery disease, there were no significant differences in associated coronary artery disease, hypertension, and cardiovascular treatment. The distribution of left ventricular ejection fraction and the number of patients with thallium redistribution were not statistically different between the two groups. During the postoperative period, group 1 received analgesia of subcutaneous morphine (n = 35), epidural fentanyl (n = 30), or epidural bupivacaine (n = 21). In group 2, 6 patients with a nonfunctioning epidural catheter due to technical failure received a balanced general anesthesia and were eliminated from the study. During the postoperative period, group 2 received analgesia of subcutaneous morphine (n = 26), epidural fentanyl (n = 25), or epidural bupivacaine (n = 30). Cardiovascular morbidity did not differ between the two groups: 22 patients in group 1 and 19 patients in group 2 had a major postoperative cardiac event.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Continuous epidural, not intravenous, droperidol inhibits pruritus, nausea, and vomiting during epidural morphine analgesia

PURPOSE: To investigate whether continuous epidural droperidol and intravenous (IV) intraoperative droperidol inhibit pruritus and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) during epidural morphine analgesia. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blinded, controlled study. SETTING: Metropolitan cancer center. PATIENTS: 120 ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing thoracic or abdominal surgery with general anesthesia combined with epidural anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received an intraoperative epidural injection of 2 mg morphine hydrochloride, followed postoperatively by a continuous epidural infusion of morphine hydrochloride 4 mg/day for 4 days. Patients were randomly allocated to four groups: Group A = control group, Group B = intraoperative single IV injection of droperidol (2.5 mg), Group C = postoperative continuous epidural droperidol infusion (2.5 mg/day), and Group D = intraoperative IV injection of droperidol (2.5 mg) and postoperative continuous epidural droperidol infusion (2.5 mg/day). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The frequency and severity of pruritus and PONV in each group were evaluated during the postoperative period. Continuous epidural infusion of droperidol significantly reduced the frequency and severity of pruritus and PONV induced by epidural morphine without causing significant side effects. Intraoperative single IV injection of droperidol was effective for PONV (p < 0.05) but not for pruritus. CONCLUSION: Postoperative epidural droperidol infusion significantly decreased both the frequency and severity of pruritus and PONV during postoperative continuous epidural morphine analgesia. IV intraoperative droperidol significantly reduced the frequency and the severity of PONV but not pruritus.     

Epidural administration of low-dose morphine combined with clonidine for postoperative analgesia after lumbar disc surgery.

This study evaluates the efficacy and side effects of a low dose of epidural morphine combined with clonidine for postoperative pain relief after lumbar disc surgery. In 36 of 51 patients who accepted the procedure, an epidural catheter was inserted (L1-L2 level). General anesthesia was induced with propofol and sufentanil, and maintained with sevoflurane in O2/N2O. After emergence from anesthesia, epidural analgesia was initiated according to two randomly assigned protocols: 1 mg of morphine with 75 microg of clonidine (Group M) or 12.5 mg of bupivacaine with 75 microg of clonidine (Group B), in 10 mL saline. Piritramide was administered during the first postoperative 24 hours using a patient-controlled analgesia device (PCA). The following parameters were recorded: piritramide consumption during the first 24 hours; pain at rest during the first postoperative hours (D0), during the first night (D1), and during the first mobilization; [visual analogue scale (VAS)]; and the occurrence of drowsiness, motor blockade, respiratory depression, nausea, vomiting, itching, micturition problems, and bladder catheterization during D0 and D1. Epidural administration of morphine-clonidine significantly improved postoperative pain relief and reduced piritramide consumption as compared to epidural bupivacaine-clonidine. Side effects did not differ between groups except for a higher incidence of micturition problems in Group M during D1. The occurrence of bladder catheterization was not significantly higher in that group. We conclude that a low dose of epidural morphine combined with clonidine offers a better postoperative analgesia than does bupivacaine-clonidine. The excellent analgesic conditions were obtained at the expense of a higher incidence of difficulties in initiating micturition.     

不同术后镇痛方式对手术患者恢复期心肌缺血的影响

目的研究硬膜外镇痛与静脉镇痛对手术患者恢复期心肌缺血的影响。方法39例行择期腹部手术的患者随机分成两组:硬膜外镇痛组(R组),16例,术中全麻复合硬膜外麻醉,术后硬膜外镇痛;静脉镇痛组(M组),23例,术中全麻,术后静脉吗啡镇痛。维持两组Price-Henry疼痛评分≤3分。所有患者接受24 h动态心电图监测48 h。两组患者在入手术室安静平卧10 min、入SICU后2 h、术后第1天晨、术后第2天晨采集静脉血测定皮质醇浓度。结果术后48 h内,R组心肌缺血发生率比M组低(P<0.05),在术后各时点,R组的皮质醇浓度低于M组(P<0.05)。结论与静脉镇痛相比较,硬膜外镇痛明显减轻应激反应,减少术后心肌缺血发生率。     

Comparison of continuous epidural bupivacaine infusion plus either continuous epidural infusion or patient-controlled epidural injection of fentanyl for postoperative analgesia.

We compared the postoperative epidural analgesia provided by the continuous epidural infusion of bupivacaine supplemented with patient-controlled injection (PCA) of epidural fentanyl with that provided by a continuous infusion of bupivacaine supplemented with a continuous epidural infusion of fentanyl. Our patient population comprised 16 ASA physical status I or II patients undergoing laparotomy with a midline incision under general anesthesia combined with bupivacaine epidural analgesia. Post-operatively, a continuous epidural infusion of bupivacaine (0.1 mg.kg-1.h-1) was combined with epidural fentanyl given by either (a) PCA (15-micrograms bolus with a lockout interval of 12 min, n = 8) or (b) continuous infusion (1 microgram.kg-1.h-1, n = 8). In the case of inadequate pain relief in the latter group, the fentanyl infusion rate was increased by 10 micrograms/h. Analgesia evaluated by a visual analogue pain score and by a verbal pain score was similarly effective in both groups. The sedation score was also similar in both groups. The total dose of epidural fentanyl administered during the first 24 h was significantly lower in the PCA group than in the continuous infusion group (405 +/- 110 micrograms vs 1600 +/- 245 micrograms, P less than 0.001). The dose of fentanyl given during each 4-h interval ranged between 40 and 160 micrograms in the PCA group and 251 and 292 micrograms in the continuous infusion group. Clinically detectable respiratory depression was not observed in either group. In conclusion, epidural administration of 0.1 mg.kg-1.h-1 bupivacaine combined with fentanyl provides effective postoperative analgesia with a total dose of fentanyl required that is lower when fentanyl is administered by epidural PCA rather than by continuous epidural infusion.     

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.     

Epidural clonidine enhances postoperative analgesia from a combined low-dose epidural bupivacaine and morphine regimen.

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the value of adding clonidine to a low-dose epidural regimen for postoperative pain treatment was assessed. Twenty-four patients scheduled for hysterectomy during combined thoracic epidural (bupivacaine and morphine) and general anesthesia were studied. Postoperative analgesia consisted of epidural bupivacaine (5 mg/h) and morphine (0.1 mg/h) for 12 h. In addition, the patients randomly received clonidine (75 micrograms), followed by an infusion of 18.75 micrograms/h or saline solution (placebo) epidurally. Pain was evaluated at rest, during cough, and during mobilization every hour. Sensory level of analgesia was evaluated by pinprick. We found no significant difference in pain scores at rest between the clonidine and placebo groups but an enhanced analgesic effect by clonidine during cough and mobilization (P less than 0.05). Arterial blood pressure decreased significantly during clonidine infusion and remained lower than in the control group throughout the study. We conclude that a continuous low-dose epidural clonidine infusion enhances analgesia from a combined low-dose epidural bupivacaine and morphine regimen after hysterectomy; however, the concomitant decrease in arterial blood pressure during epidural clonidine deserves further study before such a regimen can be recommended.     

The effect of epidural vs intravenous analgesia for posterior spinal fusion surgery

BACKGROUND: The study objective was to compare epidural vs intravenous postoperative analgesia in posterior spinal fusion surgery patients. METHODS: This prospective, double-blinded, randomized study was performed in a tertiary care teaching hospital involving 31 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II adolescent/young adult patients scheduled for elective posterior spinal fusion surgery for idiopathic scoliosis. Patients were divided into three treatment groups according to the epidural solution infused: group 1 (n = 10) 0.1% bupivacaine + 5 microg x ml(-1) fentanyl; group 2 (n = 12) 0.0625% bupivacaine + 5 microg x ml(-1) fentanyl; group 3 (n = 9) 0.9% sodium chloride (placebo). During general anesthesia all patients received a directly placed midthoracic epidural catheter with a set infusion rate followed by morphine sulfate intravenous patient-controlled analgesic device postoperatively. Morphine sulfate usage and visual analog scores were evaluated at 4 h intervals postoperatively for up to 96 h. Postoperative time to liquids, solid food, ambulation, length of stay, discontinuation of Foley catheter, and side effects were recorded. RESULTS: No consistent difference was detected on intravenous morphine dose usage, visual analog scores, or estimated pain scale over the whole follow-up period. No difference was observed in the epidural groups in time to oral intake of liquids or solids, ambulation, bowel sounds, or length of stay when compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: By evaluating morphine sulfate usage between groups, the analgesic effectiveness of continuous thoracic epidural analgesia bupivacaine and fentanyl doses used revealed no significant improvement over intravenous morphine sulfate analgesia alone in patients after posterior spinal fusion surgery.     

Comparison of bupivacaine and fentanyl as an adjuvant of epidural morphine for postoperative analgesia

We conducted a retrospective study to determine whether bupivacaine or fentanyl is a better adjuvant to epidural morphine for postoperative analgesia using 108 patients. Following epidural lidocaine anesthesia with or without light general anesthesia for major gynecological surgeries, 59 patients received epidural morphine (EPM) 2 mg (group M), 21 patients received morphine 2 mg plus 0.25% plain bupivacaine 6–10 ml epidurally (group B), and 28 patients received morphine 2 mg plus fentanyl 100 μg epidurally (group F). The analgesic interval, defined as the duration from EPM injection to the first request of analgesics for incisional pain, was significantly longer in group F than in group M (29±11vs 19±17 h,P<0.05), but similar to group B (22±14 h). Group F patients required the least amount of analgesics for incisional pain of the three groups during the first 24 h postoperatively (P<0.01). The incidence of adverse effects was similar among all three groups. In conclusion, fentanyl appears to be a better adjuvant to epidural morphine than bupivacaine.     

Comparison of ropivacaine-fentanyl patient-controlled epidural analgesia with morphine intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for perioperative analgesia and recovery after open colon surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of ropivacaine-fentanyl patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with morphine intravenous (IV) patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. SETTING: Five university-affiliated hospitals. PATIENTS: 41 patients undergoing colon surgery. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive either standardized combined epidural/general anesthesia followed by PCEA with ropivacaine 0.2% and fentanyl (2 microg/mL) or standardized general anesthesia followed by morphine IV PCA. All patients participated in a standardized postoperative clinical pathway. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Analgesia was assessed with visual analog scale (VAS) scores. Postoperative recovery was assessed by completion of prospectively defined discharge milestones and time until discharge. Statistical analyses included nonparametric and contingency table analyses. The PCEA group had better analgesia (> 50% reduction in pain scores, assessed both at rest and during a cough) for the first 3 days after surgery (p < 0.0,005). The PCEA group achieved discharge milestones approximately 36 hours faster (p < 0.002), but time until discharge was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ropivacaine-fentanyl PCEA provides superior analgesia, reduced opioid requirement, and more rapid recovery after colon surgery.     

Patient controllediv analgesia is an acceptable pain management strategy in morbidly obese patients undergoing gastric bypass surgery. A retrospective comparison with epidural analgesia

PURPOSE: To examine the hypothesis that pain treatment with patient controlled analgesia (PCA) using iv morphine is a suitable and safe alternative to epidural analgesia in morbidly obese patients undergoing gastric bypass surgery. We retrospectively compared the postoperative periods in all patients undergoing this procedure in our institution between November 1999 and November 2001. METHODS: According to their perioperative pain treatment, patients were assigned to a PCA group (with iv morphine) or an epidural analgesia group, in which patients received either intermittent doses of morphine or continuous infusions of bupivacaine/fentanyl. Study endpoints included quality of pain control, incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory complications, analgesia related side effects, time to ambulation and first flatus, length of hospital stay, and wound infections. RESULTS: Data from 86 patients were analyzed with 40 patients in the PCA group and 46 patients in the epidural group. Groups were similar with respect to age, body mass index, and gender. The type of analgesia did not affect the quality of pain control at rest, the frequency of nausea and pruritus, the time to ambulation and return of gastrointestinal function, and the length of hospital stay. Patients receiving epidural analgesia had a greater risk of wound infection than subjects with PCA (epidural group: 39%, PCA group: 15%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: We conclude that in grossly obese patients undergoing gastric bypass surgery PCA with iv morphine is an acceptable strategy for pain management and may confer some advantages when compared to epidural analgesia.