• F Duflo, V Sautou-Miranda, A Pouyau, P Taylor, S Combet, F Chotel, N Bleyzac, and D Chassard.
• Département d'Anesthésie-Réanimation, Hôpital Debrousse, Lyon, France. frederic.duflo@chu-lyon.fr
• Br J Anaesth. 2006 Aug 1;97(2):250-4.

BackgroundContinuous regional analgesia (CRA) is considered a safe and efficacious technique for postoperative pain relief in children after lower limb surgery. We recently evaluated the feasibility of patient-controlled regional analgesia (PCRA) in a similar acute pain situation and we concluded that PCRA might be advantageous over CRA in terms of lower costs, risk of systemic toxicity while producing similarly adequate analgesia. We therefore prospectively compared both techniques in the paediatric population.MethodsIn total, 30 children undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery were randomized to receive PCRA or CRA with ropivacaine 0.2%. Visual analogue scale scores, rescue analgesia, overall satisfaction, motor blockade and plasma ropivacaine concentrations were recorded for 48 h.ResultsAdequate analgesia was achieved with both techniques. No significant difference was noted for rescue analgesia, overall satisfaction and motor blockade. In contrast, children in the PCRA group received significantly less local anaesthetics than those in the CRA group. In addition, total plasma concentrations of ropivacaine were significantly reduced in the PCRA group as compared with the CRA group during the 48 h postoperative period.ConclusionsBoth techniques are efficacious and satisfactory. However, PCRA with ropivacaine 0.2% can provide adequate postoperative analgesia for paediatric orthopaedic procedures with smaller doses of ropivacaine than CRA.

26 keywords...

hide…