A. Casati

Spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric levobupivacaine and ropivacaine for outpatient knee arthroscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study.

To compare unilateral spinal block produced with small doses of hyperbaric ropivacaine with that produced by 2 doses of hyperbaric levobupivacaine, we randomly allocated 91 ASA physical status I–II outpatients undergoing knee arthroscopy to receive unilateral spinal anesthesia with 7.5 mg of hyperbaric ropivacaine 0.5% (group Ropi-7.5, n = 31) or either 7.5 mg (group Levo-7.5, n = 30) or 5 mg (group Levo-5, n = 30) of hyperbaric levobupivacaine 0.5%. Spinal anesthesia was performed at the L3-4 interspace using a 25-gauge Whitacre spinal needle. The lateral decubitus position was maintained for 15 min after injection. Strictly unilateral sensory block was present in 73%, 50%, and 61% of cases in groups Ropi-7.5, Levo-7.5, and Levo-5, respectively, 30 min after injection (P = 0.40), and unilateral motor block was observed in 94%, 93%, and 83% in groups Ropi-7.5, Levo-7.5, and Levo-5, respectively (P = 0.31). One patient of group Ropi-7.5 required general anesthesia to complete surgery, and fentanyl supplementation was required in one patient of group Ropi-7.5 (3%) and one patient of group Levo-5 (3%) (P = 0.42). The median (range) time for spinal block resolution was shorter in group Ropi-7.5 (135 [126–154] min] than in group Levo-7.5 (162 [148–201] min) (P = 0.04); whereas home discharge was shorter in groups Ropi-7.5 (197 [177–218] min) and Levo-5 (197 [187–251] min) as compared with group Levo-7.5 (238 [219–277] min) (P = 0.02 and P = 0.04, respectively). We conclude that 7.5 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric ropivacaine and 5 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric levobupivacaine provide adequate spinal block for outpatient knee arthroscopy, with a faster home discharge as compared with 7.5 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric levobupivacaine.

A prospective, randomized, blinded comparison between continuous thoracic paravertebral and epidural infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine after lung resection surgery

Background: The aim of this prospective, randomized, blinded study was to compare analgesic efficacy of continuous paravertebral and epidural analgesia for post‐thoracotomy pain. Methods: Forty‐two ASA physical status II–III patients undergoing lung resection surgery were randomly allocated to receive post‐thoracotomy analgesia with either a thoracic epidural (group EPI, n = 21) or paravertebral (group PVB, n = 21) infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine (infusion rate: 5–10 mL h−1). The degree of pain at rest and during coughing, haemodynamic variables and blood gas analysis were recorded every 12 h for the first 48 h. Results: The area under the curve of the visual analogue pain score during coughing over time was 192 (60–444) cm h−1 in group EPI and 228 (72–456) cm h−1 in group PVB (P = 0.29). Rescue morphine analgesia was required in four patients of group EPI (19%) and five patients of group PVB (23%) (P = 0.99). The PaO2/FiO2 ratio reduced significantly from baseline values in both groups without between‐group differences. The median (range) percentage reduction of systolic arterial pressure from baseline was −9 (0 to −9)% in group PVB and −17 (0 to −38)% in group EPI (P = 0.02); while clinically relevant hypotension (systolic arterial pressure decrease >30% of baseline) was observed in four patients of group EPI only (19%) (P = 0.04). Patient satisfaction with the analgesia technique was 8.5 (8–9.8) cm in group EPI and 9 (7.5–10) cm in group PVB (P = 0.65). Conclusions: Continuous thoracic paravertebral analgesia is as effective as epidural blockade in controlling post‐thoracotomy pain, but is associated with less haemodynamic effects.

Ipsilateral shoulder pain after thoracotomy surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation of the efficacy of infiltrating the phrenic nerve with 0.2%wt/vol ropivacaine.

Background and objectives: Levobupivacaine in combination with sufentanil may be used for labour or postoperative regional analgesia. The risk of bacterial growth within these contained solutions for several hours at room temperature is unknown. We investigated the in vitro antimicrobial effect of levobupivacaine and sufentanil against common micro‐organisms encountered during regional anaesthesia. Methods: Standardized suspensions of Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis and Escherichia coli were incubated for 1, 3, 6 and 24 h at 25°C, with saline (as control), sufentanil 0.5 or 0.75 &mgr;g mL−1, levobupivacaine hydrochloride 5.6 mg mL−1 and concentrations of 1.4, 2.8 and 5 mg mL−1 of levobupivacaine hydrochloride with sufentanil 0.5 &mgr;g mL−1. Colony counts were compared after 24 h incubation at 37°C. Results: No bacterial growth was observed on any bacterial strain for any solution tested throughout the experiment. Conclusions: Our results suggest that solutions of levobupivacaine combined with sufentanil may be used for 24 h at room temperature during regional anaesthesia with no risk of bacterial growth.BACKGROUND The aim of this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to evaluate the efficacy of phrenic nerve infiltration with ropivacaine 0.2% on the incidence and severity of ipsilateral shoulder pain after thoracotomy in patients receiving continuous thoracic epidural analgesia. METHODS Fifty ASA physical status II-III patients, receiving thoracic epidural analgesia for post-thoracotomy pain, were randomly allocated to receive infiltration of the ipsilateral phrenic nerve with either ropivacaine 0.2% 10 mL (ropivacaine, n = 25), or saline 0.9% (control, n = 25) just before lung expansion and chest closure. A blinded observer recorded the incidence and severity of ipsilateral shoulder pain 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48 h after surgery. Postoperative respiratory function was also evaluated with blood gas analyses. RESULTS The cumulative incidences of ipsilateral shoulder pain during the first 24 h after surgery were 8/25 in the ropivacaine and 16/25 in the control groups (P = 0.047), with median (range) onset times for shoulder pain of 2 (2-24) h with ropivacaine and 0.5 (0.5-24) h in controls (P = 0.005). No differences were reported on the second postoperative day. The areas under the curves of the amount of pain over time were 0 (0-2760) mm h for the ropivacaine and 350 (0-1900) mm h for the control groups (P = 0.06). Postoperatively, similar reductions in indices of oxygenation were observed in both groups. CONCLUSIONS Phrenic nerve infiltration with ropivacaine 0.2% 10 mL reduced the incidence and delayed the onset of ipsilateral shoulder pain during the first 24 h after open lung resection, with no clinically relevant effects on respiratory function.

Pain relief and motor function during continuous interscalene analgesia after open shoulder surgery: A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison between levobupivacaine 0.25%, and ropivacaine 0.25% or 0.4%

Background and objectives: To compare pain relief and motor impairment of 0.25% levobupivacaine with either an equivalent (0.25%) or equipotent (0.4%) concentration of ropivacaine for continuous interscalene block after open shoulder surgery. Methods: Seventy‐two adult patients scheduled for elective major shoulder surgery received an interscalene injection of mepivacaine 1.5% 30 mL followed by 24 h patient‐controlled interscalene analgesia (basal infusion rate: 5 mL h−1; incremental bolus: 2 mL; lockout period: 10 min; maximum boluses per hour: 4) with either 0.25% levobupivacaine (n = 24), 0.25% ropivacaine (n = 24) or 0.4% ropivacaine (n = 24). A blinded observer recorded the evolution of pain relief and recovery of motor block during the first 24 h. Motor function was assessed as the maximum pressure developed while squeezing a sphygmomanometer cuff with the blocked hand. The reduction from preoperative values was considered as an index of motor impairment. Results: No differences were reported among the three groups in the quality of postoperative analgesia. The number of incremental patient‐controlled interscalene analgesia doses, total volume of local anaesthetic infused during the 24‐h patient‐controlled interscalene analgesia, and number of rescue ketoprofen analgesia were higher in the ropivacaine 0.25% group than in the other two groups (P = 0.0005). The hand strength recovered to ≥90% of baseline values within the first 24 h of infusion in all groups, without differences among the three groups. Conclusion: When providing patient‐controlled interscalene analgesia after open shoulder surgery 0.25% levobupivacaine and 0.4% ropivacaine performed equally in terms of pain relief, motor block and number of patient‐controlled boluses required, while patients receiving 0.25% ropivacaine needed significantly more boluses and rescue analgesia to control their pain.

Posterior subgluteal approach to block the sciatic nerve: description of the technique and initial clinical experiences

Background and objective: A new posterior approach to the sciatic nerve in the subgluteal region was developed. We describe our clinical experiences on 135 consecutive patients. Methods: All blocks were performed with a nerve stimulator (stimulation frequency 2 Hz; intensity from 1 reduced to ⩽0.5 mA before application). A line was drawn from the greater trochanter to the ischial tuberosity of the femur; then, from the mid-point of this line, a second line was drawn perpendicularly and extended caudally for 4 cm: the end of this line represented the entry point of the needle. Sciatic stimulation was elicited at ⩽0.5 mA; then ropivacaine 0.75% 20 mL was injected. An independent observer recorded the time from needle insertion to successful sciatic nerve stimulation (performance time), the depth of appropriate sciatic stimulation and the number of needle redirections, as well as the quality of nerve block, the discomfort during the procedure and patient acceptance. Results: The performance time was 41 ± 25 s (mean ± SD) and the mean (SD) depth at which the sciatic nerve stimulation was found was 45 ± 10 mm. The median (range) number of needle redirections required to find the proper sciatic stimulation was 2 (1-5). The tibial response was observed in 77 patients (57%), while the common peroneal response was observed in 58 patients (43%). The degree of discomfort reported was very low and only 16 patients (12%) reported severe pain during placement of the block. The onset time (mean ± SD) of sensory and motor block was 7 ± 4 and 17 ± 13 min respectively, and the surgical procedure was completed with only the peripheral nerve block in 127 patients (94%). The same anaesthesia procedure was acceptable by 127 patients (94%) and only eight patients (6%) would prefer a different anaesthesia technique in the future. Conclusions: The study demonstrated that the sciatic nerve can be easily blocked using this new posterior subgluteal approach, suggesting that it represents a safe and effective alternative to block the sciatic nerve at a proximal level, with the potential for reducing the discomfort experienced by the patient during block placement.

Randomized comparison of remifentanil-propofol with a sciatic-femoral nerve block for out-patient knee arthroscopy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE To evaluate preparation and discharge times as well as the anaesthesia-related costs of out-patient knee arthroscopy performed with a combined sciatic-femoral nerve block, or a propofol-remifentanil general anaesthetic. METHODS With Ethics Committee approval and written informed consent, 40 healthy patients were pre-medicated with intravenous midazolam (0.05 mg kg(-1)) and ketoprofen (50 mg). They were then randomly allocated to receive either a combined sciatic-femoral nerve block with 25 mL mepivacaine 2% (15 mL for the femoral nerve, 10 mL for the sciatic nerve) (PNB group, n = 20), or a general anaesthetic with a continuous intravenous infusion of remifentanil (0.1-0.3 microgkg(-1) min(-1)) and propofol (target plasma concentration 2-4 microg mL(-1)) with a laryngeal mask airway (GA group, n = 20). RESULTS The median (range) preparation time was 16 (10-28)min in the PNB group and 13 (8-22)min in the GA group (P = 0.015). Ten PNB patients were directly discharged to the day-surgery unit after the procedure as compared with one GA patient (P = 0.003). Discharge from the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU) required 5 (5-20) min in the PNB group and 23 (7-95) min in the GA group (P = 0.001). Home discharge criteria were fulfilled after 277 (150-485) min in the PNB group and 170 (100-400) min in the GA group (P = 0.005). Costs related to the time spent in the PACU were lower for the PNB group (1.10 euro, range Euro 0-22 euro) compared with the GA group (30 euro, range 0-176 euro) (P = 0.0005). There were no differences in total costs: PNB group 158 euro (range 105-194 euro) versus GA group 160 euro (range 101-238 euro) (P = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS In patients undergoing out-patient knee arthroscopy, the length of stay in the PACU can be shorter after a sciatic-femoral nerve block with a small volume of mepivacaine 2% compared with a propofol-remifentanil anaesthetic, and there is an increased likelihood that they will bypass the first phase of the postoperative recovery.

Sciatic nerve block with 0.5% levobupivacaine, 0.75% levobupivacaine or 0.75% ropivacaine: a double-blind, randomized comparison

Background and objective: This prospective, randomized, double‐blind study was conducted to evaluate the onset time and duration of sciatic nerve block produced with 0.5% levobupivacaine, 0.75% levobupivacaine and 0.75% ropivacaine. Methods: Forty‐five healthy patients undergoing hallux valgus repair were randomly allocated to receive sciatic nerve block with levobupivacaine 0.5% (n = 15), levobupivacaine 0.75% (n = 15) or ropivacaine 0.75% 20 mL (n = 15). A femoral nerve block was also performed with mepivacaine 2% 15 mL to cover pain related to the thigh tourniquet. A blinded observer recorded the onset time and duration of sciatic nerve block. Results: The median (range) onset time was 5 (5‐40) min with 0.75% levobupivacaine, 30 (5‐60) min with 0.5% levobupivacaine and 20 (5‐50) min with 0.75% ropivacaine (P = 0.02 and P = 0.12, respectively). Mean (25‐75 percentiles) first request for pain medication occurred after 13 (11‐14) h with 0.75% ropivacaine, 18 (15‐19) h with 0.75% levobupivacaine and 16 (13‐20) h with 0.5% levobupivacaine (P = 0.002 and P = 0.002, respectively). Rescue tramadol after surgery was required by three patients in the 0.75% levobupivacaine group, eight patients in the 0.5% levobupivacaine group and nine patients in the 0.75% ropivacaine group (P = 0.05). Conclusions: We conclude that 0.75% levobupivacaine provides a shorter onset time than 0.5% levobupivacaine and a longer duration of postoperative analgesia than both 0.5% levobupivacaine and 0.75% ropivacaine with reduced need for rescue analgesia after surgery.

Comparison of Parecoxib and Proparacetamol in Endoscopic Nasal Surgery Patients

Purpose The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of parecoxib for postoperative analgesia after endoscopic turbinate and sinus surgery with the prodrug of acetaminophen, proparacetamol. Materials and Methods Fifty American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status I-II patients, receiving functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) and endoscopic turbinectomy, were investigated in a prospective, randomized, double-blind manner. After local infiltration with 1% mepivacaine, patients were randomly allocated to receive intravenous (IV) administration of either 40 mg of parecoxib (n = 25) or 2 g of proparacetamol (n = 25) 15 min before discontinuation of total IV anaesthesia with propofol and remifentanil. A blinded observer recorded the incidence and severity of pain at admission to the post anaesthesia care unit (PACU) at 10, 20, and 30 min after PACU admission, and every 1 h thereafter for the first 6 postoperative h. Results The area under the curve of VAS (AUCVAS) calculated during the study period was 669 (28 - 1901) cm·min in the proparacetamol group and 635 (26 - 1413) cm·min in the parecoxib group (p = 0.34). Rescue morphine analgesia was required by 14 patients (56%) in the proparacetamol group and 12 patients (48%) in the parecoxib (p ≥ 0.05), while mean morphine consumption was 5 - 3.5 mg and 5 - 2.0 mg in the proparacetamol groups and parecoxib, respectively (p ≥ 0.05). No differences in the incidence of side effects were recorded between the 2 groups. Patient satisfaction was similarly high in both groups, and all patients were uneventfully discharged 24 h after surgery. Conclusion In patients undergoing endoscopic nasal surgery, prior infiltration with local anaesthetics, parecoxib administered before discontinuing general anaesthetic, is not superior to proparacetamol in treating early postoperative pain.

Epidural block does not worsen oxygenation during one-lung ventilation for lung resections under isoflurane/nitrous oxide anaesthesia

Background and objectives: The aim of this prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study was to evaluate the effects of thoracic epidural anaesthesia combined with isoflurane/nitrous oxide anaesthesia on intraoperative oxygenation during one‐lung ventilation for lung resections. Methods: Forty patients were randomly allocated to receive general anaesthesia maintained with isoflurane/nitrous oxide (group General, n = 20) or the same anaesthetic combined with thoracic epidural anaesthesia (group Integrated, n = 20). All patients were mechanically ventilated with the same settings (FiO2 = 0.5; VT = 9 mL kg−1; inspiratory : expiratory time = 1 : 1; inspiratory pause = 10%). Effects on oxygenation were evaluated by determining the changes in PaO2/FiO2 ratio at 10, 30, 45 and 60 min of one‐lung ventilation as compared to values obtained after induction of anaesthesia (supine, two‐lung ventilation). Results: The PaO2/FiO2 ratio was decreased in both groups during one‐lung ventilation until the end of surgery. No differences were found at any observation time between the groups. Ventilation with 100% oxygen because of SPO2 decrease <92% was required in nine patients of group General (45%) and in eight patients of group Integrated (40%) (P = 0.64). Manual re‐inflation of the operated lung was required in one patient of group General only (P = 0.99). Heart rate was lower in group Integrated than in group General throughout the study. No differences between the two groups in mean arterial pressure were observed. Conclusions: Adding a thoracic epidural block to isoflurane/nitrous oxide anaesthesia during one‐lung ventilation for lung resections does not result in clinically relevant detrimental effects on intraoperative oxygenation.

fast-track anaesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy : a prospective, randomized, multicentre, blind comparison of desflurane–remifentanil or sevoflurane–remifentanil

Background and objective: To evaluate the effects of sevoflurane and desflurane in combination with intravenous remifentanil on time for discharge from the postanaesthesia care unit and need for postanaesthesia care unit management after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: 231 ASA Grade I–II patients, undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in seven University teaching hospital, were randomly allocated to receive a desflurane–remifentanil (n = 105) or sevoflurane–remifentanil (n = 126) anaesthetic. A blinded observer recorded times for emergence and postanaesthesia care unit discharge (achievement of an Aldrete score ≥9), number of patients eligible for postanaesthesia care unit discharge when exiting the operating room and occurrence of adverse events. Results: Intraoperative cardiovascular stability was similar in the two groups. Emergence, response and extubation occurred earlier after desflurane (5.4 ± 3 min, 5.5 ± 3 min and 7.5 ± 4 min) than sevoflurane (6.6 ± 3.5 min, 7.2 ± 4 min and 9.1 ± 4.2 min) (P = 0.0005, 0.05 and 0.003, respectively). Postanaesthesia care unit bypass was possible in 44 desflurane–remifentanil patients (41%) and 55 sevoflurane– remifenatnil patients (43%) (P = 0.69), while postanaesthesia care unit discharge occurred after 46 min (25th–75th percentiles: 18–40 min) with desflurane and 64 min (25th–75th percentiles: 20–50 min) with sevoflurane (P = 0.04). Postoperative nausea and vomiting was observed in 40 desflurane–remifentanil patients (36%) and 53 sevoflurane–remifentanil patients (42%) (P = 0.42). Conclusions: Both the desflurane–remifentanil and sevoflurane–remifentanil combinations provide a similarly adequate intraoperative cardiovascular stability. Emergence and postanaesthesia care unit discharge were faster with desflurane–remifentanil than sevoflurane–remifentanil, but this was not associated with a larger proportion of postanaesthesia care unit bypass, confirming that no clinically relevant differences are present between the two agents.