BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This prospective study compared the efficacy and adverse effects after knee surgery of ropivacaine 0.2% administered as patient-controlled femoral analgesia (PCFA), as a continuous femoral infusion (Inf), or as both (PCFA+Inf). METHODS: Before general anesthesia, 140 adults scheduled to undergo major knee surgery received asciatic/fascia iliaca nerve block with 0.75% ropivacaine (40 mL). After surgery, they were randomly assigned to receive, through the femoral catheter, an infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine administered as PCFA (boluses of 10 mL with a lockout time of 60 minutes), Inf (10 mL/h), or PCFA + Inf (5 mL/h plus boluses of 5 mL with a lockout time of 60 minutes). Pain was assessed at rest, on mobilization, and during physiotherapy using a visual analog scale (VAS). Additional use of intravenous (IV) analgesics was noted. RESULTS: Patients in all 3 groups experienced similar pain relief at rest, on mobilization, and after physiotherapy (P >.05). Additional use of analgesics and overall patient satisfaction (excellent or good in 80% of cases) were also similar in all groups. However, total postoperative ropivacaine consumption was lower in the PCFA group, 150 mL/48 h (90.5 to 210); than in the Inf group, 480 mL/48 h (478 to 480); and the PCFA + Inf group, 310 mL/48 h (280 to 340) (P <.05). Adverse events were similar in all 3 groups (hypotension, vomiting, insomnia). No paresthesia or motor block were observed. CONCLUSION: All 3 strategies provided effective pain relief. PCFA resulted in a lower consumption of ropivacaine (toxic and financial impact). PCFA + Inf does not improve postoperative analgesia.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This prospective study compared the efficacy and adverse effects after knee surgery of ropivacaine 0.2% administered as patient-controlled femoral analgesia (PCFA), as a continuous femoral infusion (Inf), or as both (PCFA+Inf). METHODS: Before general anesthesia, 140 adults scheduled to undergo major knee surgery received a sciatic/fascia iliaca nerve block with 0.75% ropivacaine (40 mL). After surgery, they were randomly assigned to receive, through the femoral catheter, an infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine administered as PCFA (boluses of 10 mL with a lockout time of 60 minutes), Inf (10 mL/h), or PCFA + Inf (5 mL/h plus boluses of 5 mL with a lockout time of 60 minutes). Pain was assessed at rest, on mobilization, and during physiotherapy using a visual analog scale (VAS). Additional use of intravenous (IV) analgesics was noted. RESULTS:Patients in all 3 groups experienced similar pain relief at rest, on mobilization, and after physiotherapy (P >.05). Additional use of analgesics and overall patient satisfaction (excellent or good in 80% of cases) were also similar in all groups. However, total postoperative ropivacaine consumption was lower in the PCFA group, 150 mL/48 h (90.5 to 210); than in the Inf group, 480 mL/48 h (478 to 480); and the PCFA + Inf group, 310 mL/48 h (280 to 340) (P <.05). Adverse events were similar in all 3 groups (hypotension, vomiting, insomnia). No paresthesia or motor block were observed. CONCLUSION: All 3 strategies provided effective pain relief. PCFA resulted in a lower consumption of ropivacaine (toxic and financial impact). PCFA + Inf does not improve postoperative analgesia.
Authors: S J Madison; A M Monahan; R R Agarwal; T J Furnish; E J Mascha; Z Xu; M C Donohue; A C Morgan; B M Ilfeld Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Brian M Ilfeld; Vanessa J Loland; NavParkash S Sandhu; Preetham J Suresh; Michael J Bishop; Michael C Donohue; Eliza J Ferguson; Sarah J Madison Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Salim M Hayek; R Michael Ritchey; Daniel Sessler; Robert Helfand; Samuel Samuel; Meng Xu; Michael Beven; Demetrios Bourdakos; Wael Barsoum; Peter Brooks Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Matthew T Charous; Sarah J Madison; Preetham J Suresh; NavParkash S Sandhu; Vanessa J Loland; Edward R Mariano; Michael C Donohue; Pascual H Dutton; Eliza J Ferguson; Brian M Ilfeld Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 7.892