Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Feb 2002
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Clinical TrialThe efficacy and safety of three concentrations of levobupivacaine administered as a continuous epidural infusion in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery.
We evaluated the efficacy and safety of three concentrations of levobupivacaine infused epidurally as analgesia for patients undergoing orthopedic procedures. Patients undergoing elective hip or knee joint replacement were enrolled in the study (n = 105). Sensory blockade was established preoperatively with 10-15 mL of 0.75% levobupivacaine. Patients were then randomized to receive 0.0625%, 0.125%, or 0.25% levobupivacaine as a continuous epidural infusion at 6 mL/h for 24 h. IV morphine patient-controlled analgesia was given as rescue analgesia, and time to first request for analgesia and total dose of morphine consumed were recorded. Sensory blockade, motor blockade, visual analog scale pain score, and cardiovascular variables were also recorded at regular intervals postoperatively. Ninety-one patients were included in the primary intent-to-treat analysis. Total normalized dose of morphine, number of patient-controlled analgesia requests, and overall postoperative visual analog scale pain scores were significantly lower for the 0.25% group compared with the other two groups, and the time to first request for rescue analgesia was longer. There was no significant difference between the 0.125% and 0.25% groups in terms of maximum motor blockade achieved and time to minimal motor blockade. Safety data were equivalent among the three groups. We conclude that levobupivacaine as a continuous epidural infusion provided adequate postoperative analgesia and that the 0.25% concentration provided significantly longer analgesia than 0.125% or 0.0625% levobupivacaine without any significant increase in detectable motor blockade relative to the 0.125% group. ⋯ Postoperative epidural infusion of levobupivacaine can provide safe and effective analgesia for patients having hip or knee joint replacement. Of the three concentrations we infused at a constant rate, 0.25% provided significantly better pain relief.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Feb 2002
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialRopivacaine undergoes slower systemic absorption from the caudal epidural space in children than bupivacaine.
We compared the systemic absorption of ropivacaine and bupivacaine after caudal epidural administration in children. Twenty ASA physical status I or II children aged 1-7 yr undergoing elective hypospadias repair were randomized after the induction of general anesthesia to receive a single caudal epidural injection of 2 mg/kg of either ropivacaine 0.2% (R) or bupivacaine 0.2% (B) in a double-blinded fashion. Peripheral venous blood samples (1 mL) were obtained before and 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 120 min after the caudal injection. The total R and B concentration was measured in plasma by using high-performance liquid chromatography. All blocks were successful, and there were no complications. The peak plasma concentration (mean +/- SD) (R = 0.67 +/- 0.16 and B = 0.73 +/- 0.23 microg/mL) and the area under the plasma concentration curve (R = 61.9 +/- 20.6 and B = 62.7 +/- 18.2 microg x mL(-1) x min(-1)) were comparable between the two study groups. The median (range) time to attain peak plasma concentration was significantly slower in children who received ropivacaine (R = 65 [10-120] min and B = 20 [15-50] min, P < 0.05). We conclude that ropivacaine undergoes slower systemic absorption from the caudal epidural space in children than does bupivacaine. ⋯ We compared the systemic absorption of ropivacaine (0.2%) and bupivacaine (0.2%) after caudal epidural injection of 2 mg/kg in children aged 1-7 yr. Our results show that ropivacaine undergoes slower systemic absorption from the caudal epidural space in children than does bupivacaine.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Feb 2002
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialParavertebral blockade for minor breast surgery.
Paravertebral blockade (PVB) has been advocated as a useful technique for breast surgery. We prospectively compared the efficacy of PVB via a catheter technique with the efficacy of general anesthesia (GA) for minor breast surgery. Thirty patients were randomized into two groups to receive either PVB or GA. Variables of efficacy were postoperative pain measured on a visual analog scale, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), recovery time, and patient satisfaction. Postoperative visual analog scale scores in the PVB group were significantly lower in the early postoperative period (maximum, 12 vs 45 mm; P < 0.01). In both groups, PONV was nearly absent. There was no difference in recovery time. Patient satisfaction was better in the PVB group (2.8 vs 2.3; scale, 0-3; P < 0.01). There was one inadvertent epidural block and one inadvertent pleural puncture in the PVB group. Although PVB resulted in better postoperative pain relief, the advantages over GA were marginal in this patient group because postoperative pain was relatively mild and the incidence of PONV was small. Considering that the technique has a certain complication rate, we conclude that at present the risk/benefit ratio of PVB does not favor routine use for minor breast surgery. ⋯ This study confirms the previously reported superior pain relief after paravertebral blockade (PVB) for breast surgery. However, considering the relatively mild postoperative pain and therefore the limited advantage of PVB for these patients, the risk/benefit ratio does not favor the routine use of PVB for minor breast surgery.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Feb 2002
Meta AnalysisPharmacological treatment of postoperative shivering: a quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Shivering is a frequent complication in the postoperative period. The relative efficacy of interventions that are used for the treatment of postoperative shivering is not well understood. We performed a systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, hand searching, all languages, to August, 2000) for full reports of randomized comparisons of any pharmacological antishivering intervention (active) with placebo (control) in the postoperative period. Dichotomous data on absence of further shivering after treatment and adverse effects were extracted from original reports. Relative risk (RR) and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) were calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed effect model. Data from 20 trials (944 adults received an active intervention, 413 were controls) were analyzed. Antishivering efficacy depended on the active regimen and the length of follow-up. Efficacy with meperidine 25 mg, clonidine 150 microg, ketanserin 10 mg, and doxapram 100 mg was reported in at least three trials; all were significantly more effective than control. After 1 min, the NNT of meperidine 25 mg for no further shivering compared with placebo was 2.7 (RR, 6.8; 95% CI, 2.5-18.5). After 5 min, the NNT of meperidine 25 mg was 1.3 (RR, 9.6; 95% CI, 5.7-16), the NNT of clonidine 150 microg was 1.3 (RR, 6.8; 95% CI, 3.3-14.2), the NNT of doxapram 100 mg was 1.7 (RR 4.0; 95% CI, 2.4-6.5), and the NNT of ketanserin 10 mg was 2.3 (RR 3.1; 95% CI, 1.9-5.1). After 10 min, the NNT of meperidine 25 mg was 1.5 (RR 4.0; 95% CI, 2.5-6.2). After 15 min, the NNT of ketanserin 10 mg was 3.3 (RR 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9). Long-term outcome data were lacking. There were not enough data for alfentanil, fentanyl, morphine, nalbuphine, lidocaine, magnesium, metamizol, methylphenidate, nefopam, pentazocine, and tramadol to draw meaningful conclusions. Reporting of adverse drug reactions was sparse. Fewer than two shivering patients need to be treated with meperidine 25 mg, clonidine 150 microg, or doxapram 100 mg for one to stop shivering within 5 min who would have continued to shiver had they all received a placebo. ⋯ Less than two shivering patients need to be treated with meperidine 25 mg, clonidine 150 microg, or doxapram 100 mg for one to stop shivering within 5 min who would have continued to shiver had they all received a placebo.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Feb 2002
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialChloroprocaine is less painful than lidocaine for skin infiltration anesthesia.
Skin infiltration of local anesthetics causes pain. In a double-blinded protocol, 22 volunteers received random intradermal injections to the volar surface of the forearm with each of the following solutions: normal saline solution 0.9% (NSS), lidocaine 1% (L), lidocaine 1% and sodium bicarbonate 8.4% (L+BIC), 2-chloroprocaine 2% (CP), 2-chloroprocaine 2% and sodium bicarbonate 8.4% (CP+BIC), and NaCHO(3) 8.4% (BIC). Initially, each volunteer received an open-labeled injection of NSS. A 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS, 1-100) was used to assess pain with each injection. The pH of each solution was stable for the length of the study. Repeated measures of variance were used for analysis. The VAS scores (mean +/- SD) for open-label and blinded NSS injections were 15.5 +/- 15.9 and 14.0 +/- 18.1, respectively. The scores for the studied solutions were as follows: BIC, 47.2 +/- 25.5; L, 25.8 +/- 27.6; L+BIC, 16.0 +/- 14.2; CP, 8.6 +/- 7.4; and CP+BIC, 6.8 +/- 6.7. No significant difference was found between CP and alkalinized CP, but the injection of both solutions was significantly less painful than that of all other solutions (P < 0.05). The pH of the solutions was not related to the pain score. We found that chloroprocaine caused less pain at injection than the more commonly used lidocaine. ⋯ Using 2-chloroprocaine can diminish pain caused by the intradermal injection of lidocaine. pH variations of the solution did not relate to the pain profile of the local anesthetic.