BACKGROUND: It remains unknown whether local anesthetic concentration, or simply total drug dose, is the primary determinant of continuous peripheral nerve block effects. We therefore tested the null hypothesis that providing different concentrations and rates of ropivacaine, but at equal total doses, produces comparable effects when used in a continuous sciatic nerve block in the popliteal fossa. METHODS: Preoperatively, a perineural catheter was inserted adjacent to the sciatic nerve using a posterior popliteal approach in patients undergoing moderately painful orthopedic surgery at or distal to the ankle. Postoperatively, patients were randomly assigned to receive a perineural ropivacaine infusion of either 0.2% (basal 8 mL/h, bolus 4 mL) or 0.4% (basal 4 mL/h, bolus 2 mL) through the second postoperative day. Therefore, both groups received 16 mg of ropivacaine each hour with a possible addition of 8 mg every 30 min via a patient-controlled bolus dose. The primary end point was the incidence of an insensate limb, considered undesirable, during the 24-h period beginning the morning after surgery. Secondary end points included analgesia and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Patients given 0.2% ropivacaine (n = 25) experienced an insensate limb with a mean (sd) of 1.8 (1.8) times, compared with 0.6 (1.1) times for subjects receiving 0.4% ropivacaine (n = 25; estimated difference = 1.2 episodes, 95% confidence interval, 0.3-2.0 episodes; P = 0.009). In contrast, analgesia and satisfaction were similar in each group. CONCLUSIONS: For continuous popliteal-sciatic nerve blocks, local anesthetic concentration and volume influence block characteristics. Insensate limbs were far more common with larger volumes of relatively dilute ropivacaine. During continuous sciatic nerve block in the popliteal fossa, a relatively concentrated solution in smaller volume thus appears preferable.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: It remains unknown whether local anesthetic concentration, or simply total drug dose, is the primary determinant of continuous peripheral nerve block effects. We therefore tested the null hypothesis that providing different concentrations and rates of ropivacaine, but at equal total doses, produces comparable effects when used in a continuous sciatic nerve block in the popliteal fossa. METHODS: Preoperatively, a perineural catheter was inserted adjacent to the sciatic nerve using a posterior popliteal approach in patients undergoing moderately painful orthopedic surgery at or distal to the ankle. Postoperatively, patients were randomly assigned to receive a perineural ropivacaine infusion of either 0.2% (basal 8 mL/h, bolus 4 mL) or 0.4% (basal 4 mL/h, bolus 2 mL) through the second postoperative day. Therefore, both groups received 16 mg of ropivacaine each hour with a possible addition of 8 mg every 30 min via a patient-controlled bolus dose. The primary end point was the incidence of an insensate limb, considered undesirable, during the 24-h period beginning the morning after surgery. Secondary end points included analgesia and patient satisfaction. RESULTS:Patients given 0.2% ropivacaine (n = 25) experienced an insensate limb with a mean (sd) of 1.8 (1.8) times, compared with 0.6 (1.1) times for subjects receiving 0.4% ropivacaine (n = 25; estimated difference = 1.2 episodes, 95% confidence interval, 0.3-2.0 episodes; P = 0.009). In contrast, analgesia and satisfaction were similar in each group. CONCLUSIONS: For continuous popliteal-sciatic nerve blocks, local anesthetic concentration and volume influence block characteristics. Insensate limbs were far more common with larger volumes of relatively dilute ropivacaine. During continuous sciatic nerve block in the popliteal fossa, a relatively concentrated solution in smaller volume thus appears preferable.
Authors: S Ganapathy; R A Wasserman; J T Watson; J Bennett; K P Armstrong; C A Stockall; D G Chess; C MacDonald Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Brian M Ilfeld; Navparkash S Sandhu; Vanessa J Loland; Sarah J Madison; Preetham J Suresh; Edward R Mariano; Michael L Bishop; Alexandra K Schwartz; Daniel K Lee Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2011 May-Jun Impact factor: 6.288
Authors: Maria Bauer; Lu Wang; Olusegun K Onibonoje; Chad Parrett; Daniel I Sessler; Loran Mounir-Soliman; Sherif Zaky; Viktor Krebs; Leonard T Buller; Michael C Donohue; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley; Brian M Ilfeld Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Linda T Le; Vanessa J Loland; Edward R Mariano; J C Gerancher; Anupama N Wadhwa; Elizabeth M Renehan; Daniel I Sessler; Jonathan J Shuster; Douglas W Theriaque; Rosalita C Maldonado; Brian M Ilfeld Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 6.288
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: T Edward Kim; Steven K Howard; Natasha Funck; T Kyle Harrison; Tessa L Walters; Michael J Wagner; Toni Ganaway; Jonah Mullens; Bruce Lehnert; Edward R Mariano Journal: J Anesth Date: 2014-05-01 Impact factor: 2.078
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
Authors: Edward R Mariano; Vanessa J Loland; NavParkash S Sandhu; Michael L Bishop; Daniel K Lee; Alexandra K Schwartz; Paul J Girard; Eliza J Ferguson; Brian M Ilfeld Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2010-08-11 Impact factor: 5.063
Authors: Brian M Ilfeld; Linda T Le; Joanne Ramjohn; Vanessa J Loland; Anupama N Wadhwa; J C Gerancher; Elizabeth M Renehan; Daniel I Sessler; Jonathan J Shuster; Douglas W Theriaque; Rosalita C Maldonado; Edward R Mariano Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Christina L Jeng; Toni M Torrillo; Michael R Anderson; R Sean Morrison; Knox H Todd; Meg A Rosenblatt Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 2.153