Does continuous wound infiltration enhance baseline intravenous multimodal analgesia after posterior spinal fusion surgery? A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study.

PURPOSE: There has been a growing interest in continuous local anaesthetic wound infiltration as a non-opioid technique for postoperative pain relief. The impact of this modality on baseline analgesia after spinal fusion surgery has however been inconclusive. We tested whether continuous wound infiltration with ropivacaine can enhance postoperative analgesia compared to a baseline intravenous multimodal analgesia protocol after spinal fusion surgery. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, a multiholed 19-gauge catheter was placed at the end of the surgical procedure through the wound to permit the continuous administration (8 ml/h) of ropivacaine 0.2 % (ropivacaine group; n = 19 patients) or saline (control group; n = 20 patients) during the first 48 postoperative hours (H48). Both groups received intraoperative low-dose ketamine, a combination of acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, and nefopam over the same postoperative period, and morphine delivered by a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device. RESULTS: Morphine consumption was comparable between the two groups both at H48, 38 mg (26:52) (median, 25th:75th percentile) (control group) versus 43 mg (19:74) (ropivacaine group), and at H24, 18 mg (16:22) versus 22 mg (9:35) respectively. Pain scores at rest and during mobilization, quality of postoperative sleep, and morphine-related side effects were comparable between the two groups at H24 and H48. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that no additional analgesia was provided with continuous wound infiltration of ropivacaine compared to a baseline intravenous multimodal analgesia protocol after spinal fusion surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov #NCT01743794.

Reduced variability and execution time to reach a target with a needle GPS system: Comparison between physicians, residents and nurse anaesthetists.

Ultrasound (US) guided needle positioning is safer than anatomical landmark techniques for central venous access. Hand-eye coordination and execution time depend on the professional's ability, previous training and personal skills. Needle guidance positioning systems (GPS) may theoretically reduce execution time and facilitate needle positioning in specific targets, thus improving patient comfort and safety. Three groups of healthcare professionals (41 anaesthesiologists and intensivists, 41 residents in anaesthesiology and intensive care, 39 nurse anaesthetists) were included and required to perform 3 tasks (positioning the tip of a needle in three different targets in a silicon phantom) by using successively a conventional US-guided needle positioning and a needle GPS. We measured execution times to perform the tasks, hand-eye coordination and the number of repositioning occurrences or errors in handling the needle or the probe. Without the GPS system, we observed a significant inter-individual difference for execution time (P<0.05), hand-eye coordination and the number of errors/needle repositioning between physicians, residents and nurse anaesthetists. US training and video gaming were found to be independent factors associated with a shorter execution time. Use of GPS attenuated the inter-individual and group variability. We observed a reduced execution time and improved hand-eye coordination in all groups as compared to US without GPS. Neither US training, video gaming nor demographic personal or professional factors were found to be significantly associated with reduced execution time when GPS was used. US associated with GPS systems may improve safety and decrease execution time by reducing inter-individual variability between professionals for needle-handling procedures.