PURPOSE: The aims of the present study were (1) to investigate if a disposable patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device can be used for labor analgesia and (2) to evaluate the device by midwives and parturients. METHODS:Forty healthy parturients were divided into two groups and received combined spinal epidural analgesia for labor pain relief. Following intrathecal administration of 3 mg ropivacaine and 1.5 microg sufentanil, either a disposable PCA device (Coopdech Syrinjector; Daiken Medical, Osaka, Japan) or an electronic PCA device (IVAC PCAM PCA Syringe Pump; Alaris, Basingstoke, UK) was connected to the epidural catheter, and 0.15% ropivacaine with sufentanil 0.75 microg/ml was used for continuous infusion and PCA. For an electronic PCA device, continuous infusion rate, bolus dose, lockout time, and hourly limit were set at 4 ml/h, 3 ml, 15 min, and 16 ml, respectively. For a disposable PCA device, continuous infusion rate, bolus dose, and an hourly limit were set at 4 ml/h, 3 ml, and 16 ml, respectively, but lockout function was not available. RESULTS: No differences were observed between the groups concerning demographic data, obstetric data, and outcome of labor. Anesthetic requirements (disposable, 9.7 +/- 4.7 ml/h; electronic, 8.2 +/- 4.0 ml/h) and VAS score during the delivery (disposable, 26 +/- 25; electronic, 21 +/- 22) were similar between the groups. Midwives praised the disposable PCA device as well as the electronic one. CONCLUSION: The present results imply that the disposable PCA device can be an alternative to the electronic PCA device for labor analgesia.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aims of the present study were (1) to investigate if a disposable patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device can be used for labor analgesia and (2) to evaluate the device by midwives and parturients. METHODS: Forty healthy parturients were divided into two groups and received combined spinal epidural analgesia for labor pain relief. Following intrathecal administration of 3 mg ropivacaine and 1.5 microg sufentanil, either a disposable PCA device (Coopdech Syrinjector; Daiken Medical, Osaka, Japan) or an electronic PCA device (IVAC PCAM PCA Syringe Pump; Alaris, Basingstoke, UK) was connected to the epidural catheter, and 0.15% ropivacaine with sufentanil 0.75 microg/ml was used for continuous infusion and PCA. For an electronic PCA device, continuous infusion rate, bolus dose, lockout time, and hourly limit were set at 4 ml/h, 3 ml, 15 min, and 16 ml, respectively. For a disposable PCA device, continuous infusion rate, bolus dose, and an hourly limit were set at 4 ml/h, 3 ml, and 16 ml, respectively, but lockout function was not available. RESULTS: No differences were observed between the groups concerning demographic data, obstetric data, and outcome of labor. Anesthetic requirements (disposable, 9.7 +/- 4.7 ml/h; electronic, 8.2 +/- 4.0 ml/h) and VAS score during the delivery (disposable, 26 +/- 25; electronic, 21 +/- 22) were similar between the groups. Midwives praised the disposable PCA device as well as the electronic one. CONCLUSION: The present results imply that the disposable PCA device can be an alternative to the electronic PCA device for labor analgesia.