Does continuous sciatic nerve block improve postoperative analgesia and early rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty? A prospective, randomized, double-blinded study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to evaluate whether continuous sciatic nerve block can improve postoperative pain relief and early rehabilitation compared with single-injection sciatic nerve block in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and lumbar plexus block. METHODS: After ethical committee approval and written informed consent, 38 patients with ASA physical status I to II were enrolled. The first group received continuous sciatic and continuous lumbar plexus blocks (group regional or R, n = 19), whereas the second group received a single sciatic nerve block followed by saline infusion through the sciatic catheter and continuous lumbar plexus block (group control or C, n = 19). We assessed morphine consumption, scores for visual analog scale for pain at rest (VASr), and during continuous passive motion (VASi during CPM) for 48 hours postoperatively. Effectiveness of early ambulation was also evaluated. RESULTS: Scores for VASr and VASi during CPM, as well as morphine consumption, were significantly higher in group C than in group R (P < 0.01). Moreover, patients in group R showed earlier rehabilitation with more effective ambulation (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Continuous sciatic nerve block improves analgesia, decreases morphine request, and improves early rehabilitation compared with single-injection sciatic nerve block in patients undergoing TKA and lumbar plexus block.

Predictive performance of the 'Minto' remifentanil pharmacokinetic parameter set in morbidly obese patients ensuing from a new method for calculating lean body mass.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In a previous article, we showed that the pharmacokinetic set of remifentanil used for target-controlled infusion (TCI) might be biased in obese patients because it incorporates flawed equations for the calculation of lean body mass (LBM), which is a covariate of several pharmacokinetic parameters in this set. The objectives of this study were to determine the predictive performance of the original pharmacokinetic set, which incorporates the James equation for LBM calculation, and to determine the predictive performance of the pharmacokinetic set when a new method to calculate LBM was used (the Janmahasatian equations). METHODS: This was an observational study with intraoperative observations and no follow-up. Fifteen morbidly obese inpatients scheduled for bariatric surgery were included in the study. The intervention included manually controlled continuous infusion of remifentanil during the surgery and analysis of arterial blood samples to determine the arterial remifentanil concentration, to be compared with concentrations predicted by either the unadjusted or the adjusted pharmacokinetic set. The statistical analysis included parametric and non-parametric tests on continuous variables and determination of the median performance error (MDPE), median absolute performance error (MDAPE), divergence and wobble. RESULTS: The median values (interquartile ranges) of the MDPE, MDAPE, divergence and wobble for the James equations during maintenance were -53.4% (-58.7% to -49.2%), 53.4% (49.0-58.7%), 3.3% (2.9-4.7%) and 1.4% h(-1) (1.1-2.5% h(-1)), respectively. The respective values for the Janmahasatian equations were -18.9% (-24.2% to -10.4%), 20.5% (13.3-24.8%), 2.6% (-0.7% to 4.5%) and 1.9% h(-1) (1.4-3.0% h(-1)). The performance (in terms of the MDPE and MDAPE) of the corrected pharmacokinetic set was better than that of the uncorrected one. The predictive performance of the original pharmacokinetic set is not clinically acceptable. Use of a corrected LBM value in morbidly obese patients corrects this pharmacokinetic set and allows its use in obese patients. The 'fictitious height' can be a valid alternative for use of TCI infusion of remifentanil in morbidly obese patients until commercially available infusion pumps and research software are updated and new LBM equations are implemented in their algorithms.

No adjustment vs. adjustment formula as input weight for propofol target-controlled infusion in morbidly obese patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to determine the predictive performance of target-controlled infusions of propofol in morbidly obese patients using the 'Marsh' pharmacokinetic parameter set. METHODS: Twenty-four patients (ASA II or III, age 25-62 years, BMI 35.5-61.7) were randomly allocated to receive propofol target-controlled infusion based on a weight adjustment formula (group adjusted) or without adjustment [group total body weight (TBW)]. Anaesthesia was induced by a propofol-targeted concentration of 6 microg ml that was subsequently adapted to maintain stable bispectral index values ranging between 40 and 50. Arterial blood samples were collected before the start of the infusion and every 15 min thereafter to determine the predictive performances. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regard to performance errors, divergence and wobble. Results are presented as median (interquartiles). Median performance error and median absolute performance error were -31.7 (-35.9, -19.4) and 31.7% (20.2, 35.9) for group adjusted and -16.3 (-26.3, 2.2) and 20.6% (14.8, 26.9) for group TBW, respectively. Wobble median value was 7.4% (3.8, 8.4) for group adjusted and 8.2% (7.0, 9.6) for group TBW. As for wobble and divergence, no statistically significant differences were found between groups. CONCLUSION: Weight adjustment causes a clinically unacceptable performance bias, which is not corrected when TBW is used as an input to the 'Marsh' model. It is, therefore, advisable to administer propofol to morbidly obese patients by titration to targeted processed-EEG values.

Effects of using the posterior or anterior approaches to the lumbar plexus on the minimum effective anesthetic concentration (MEAC) of mepivacaine required to block the femoral nerve: a prospective, randomized, up-and-down study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if psoas compartment block requires a larger concentration of mepivacaine to block the femoral nerve than does an anterior 3-in-1 femoral nerve block. METHODS: Forty eight patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament repair were randomly allocated to receive an anterior 3-in-1 femoral block (femoral group, n = 24) or a posterior psoas compartment block (psoas group, n = 24) with 30 mL of mepivacaine. The concentration of the injected solution was varied for consecutive patients using an up-and-down staircase method (initial concentration: 1%; up-and-down steps: 0.1%). RESULTS: The minimum effective anesthetic concentration of mepivacaine blocking the femoral nerve in 50% of cases (ED(50)) was 1.06% +/- 0.31% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45%-1.68%) in the femoral group and 1.03% +/- 0.21% (95% CI, 0.6%-1.45%) in the psoas group (P = .83). The lateral femoral cutaneous and obturator nerves were blocked in 4 (16%) and 5 (20%) femoral group patients as compared with 20 (83%) and 19 (80%) psoas group patients (P = .005 and P = .0005, respectively). Intraoperative analgesic supplementation was required by 15 (60%) and 5 (20%) patients in the femoral and psoas groups, respectively (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Using a posterior psoas compartment approach to the lumbar plexus does not increase the minimum effective anesthetic concentration of mepivacaine required to block the femoral nerve as compared with the anterior 3-in-1 approach, and provides better quality of intraoperative anesthesia due to the more reliable block of the lateral femoral cutaneous and obturator nerves.

Minimum effective anesthetic concentration (MEAC) for sciatic nerve block: subgluteus and popliteal approaches.

BACKGROUND: We tested the hypothesis that using a subgluteus approach to the sciatic nerve requires a lower concentration of mepivacaine to obtain complete anesthesia as compared with the popliteal approach. METHODS: With midazolam premedication (0.05 mg kg(-1) iv), 48 patients undergoing hallux valgus repair were randomly allocated to receive a sciatic nerve block using either a posterior popliteal (group Popliteal, n = 24) or subgluteus (group Subgluteus, n = 24) approach with 30 mL of local anesthetic injected after elicitation of plantar flexion of the foot with a current

Using stimulating catheters for continuous sciatic nerve block shortens onset time of surgical block and minimizes postoperative consumption of pain medication after halux valgus repair as compared with conventional nonstimulating catheters.

UNLABELLED: We prospectively tested the hypothesis that the use of a stimulating catheter improves the efficacy of continuous posterior popliteal sciatic nerve block in 100 randomized patients scheduled for elective orthopedic foot surgery. After eliciting a sciatic mediated muscular twitch at < or = 0.5 mA nerve stimulation output, the perineural catheter was advanced 2-4 cm beyond the tip of the introducer either blindly (Group C; n = 50) or stimulating via the catheter (Group S; n = 50). A bolus dose of 25 mL of 1.5% mepivacaine was followed by a postoperative patient-controlled infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine (basal infusion: 3 mL/h; incremental dose: 5 mL; lockout time: 30 min). Propacetamol 2 g IV was administered every 8 h, and opioid rescue analgesia was available if required. Catheter placement required 7 +/- 2 min in Group S and 5 +/- 2 min in Group C (P = 0.056). A significantly shorter onset time of both sensory and motor blocks was noted in Group S. No difference in quality of pain relief at rest and during motion was reported between the groups. Median (range) local anesthetic consumption during the first 48 h after surgery was 239 mL (175-519 mL) and 322 mL (184-508 mL) in Groups S and C, respectively (P = 0.002). Rescue opioid analgesia was required by 12 (25%) and 28 (58%) patients in Groups S and C, respectively (P = 0.002). We conclude that the use of a stimulating catheter results in shorter onset time of posterior popliteal sciatic nerve block, similar pain relief with reduced postoperative consumption of local anesthetic solution, and less rescue opioid consumption. IMPLICATIONS: This prospective, randomized, blind investigation demonstrated that the use of a stimulating catheter for continuous posterior popliteal sciatic nerve block resulted in shorter onset time of sensory and motor blocks and less local anesthetic consumption and need for rescue pain medication after elective orthopedic foot surgery compared with blind catheter advancement.

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.

Adding clonidine to the induction bolus and postoperative infusion during continuous femoral nerve block delays recovery of motor function after total knee arthroplasty.

We evaluated the effects of adding clonidine for continuous peripheral nerve infusions. Sixty patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty under combined single-injection sciatic block and continuous femoral infusion were randomly allocated to three groups: block induction with 0.75% ropivacaine followed by 0.2% ropivacaine (group control; n = 20); block induction with 0.75% ropivacaine and 1 microg/kg clonidine followed by 0.2% ropivacaine (group cloni-bolus; n = 20), and block induction with 0.75% ropivacaine and 1 microg/kg clonidine followed by 0.2% ropivacaine with 1 microg/mL clonidine (group cloni-infusion; n = 20). After surgery, continuous femoral infusion was provided with a patient-controlled infusion pump (basal infusion rate, 6 mL/h; incremental dose, 2 mL; lockout time, 15 min). The median (range) onset time of surgical block was 15 min (5-30 min) in group control, 10 min (5-35 min) in group cloni-bolus, and 10 min (5-30 min) in group cloni-infusion (P = 0.07). No differences were reported among groups in the degree of pain measured with the visual analog scale. The total consumption of local anesthetic solution after a 24-h infusion was 170 mL (144-220 mL) in group control, 169 mL (144-260 mL) in group cloni-bolus, and 164 mL (144-248 mL) in group cloni-infusion (P = 0.51); after the second day of infusion, total consumption was 168 mL (144-200 mL) in group control, 156 mL (144-288 mL) in group cloni-bolus, and 150 mL (144-210 mL) in group cloni-infusion (P = 0.48). Hemodynamic profiles and sedation were similar in the three groups. Motor function impairment after 48 h of infusion was observed in 27% of cloni-infusion patients but in only 6% of both the control and cloni-bolus groups (P = 0.05). We conclude that adding clonidine 1 microg/mL to local anesthetic for continuous femoral nerve block does not improve the quality of pain relief but has the potential for delaying recovery of motor function.

Levobupivacaine 0.2% or 0.125% for continuous sciatic nerve block: a prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison with 0.2% ropivacaine.

In 60 patients receiving elective hallux valgus repair, we compared the efficacy of continuous popliteal sciatic nerve block produced with 0.2% ropivacaine (n = 20), 0.2% levobupivacaine (n = 20), or 0.125% levobupivacaine (n = 20) infused with a patient-controlled system starting 3 h after a 30-mL bolus of the 0.5% concentration of the study drug and for 48 h (baseline infusion rate, 6 mL/h; incremental dose, 2 mL; lockout time, 15 min; maximum incremental doses per hour, 3). No differences were reported in the intraoperative efficacy of the nerve block. The degree of pain was similar in the three groups throughout the study period, both at rest and during motion. Total consumption of local anesthetic solution during the first 24 h was 148 mL (range, 144-228 mL) with 0.2% ropivacaine, 150 mL (range, 144-200 mL) with 0.2% levobupivacaine, and 148 mL (range, 144-164 mL) with 0.125% levobupivacaine (P = 0.59). The volume of local anesthetic consumed during the second postoperative day was 150 mL (range, 144-164 mL) with 0.2% ropivacaine, 154 mL (range, 144-176 mL) with 0.2% levobupivacaine, and 151 mL (range, 144-216 mL) with 0.125% levobupivacaine (P = 0.14). A smaller proportion of patients receiving 0.2% levobupivacaine showed complete recovery of foot motor function as compared with 0.2% ropivacaine and 0.125% levobupivacaine, both at 24 h (35% vs 85% and 95%; P = 0.0005) and at 48 h (60% vs 100% and 100%; P = 0.001). We conclude that sciatic infusion with both 0.125% and 0.2% levobupivacaine provides adequate postoperative analgesia after hallux valgus repair, clinically similar to that provided by 0.2% ropivacaine; however, the 0.125% concentration is preferred if early mobilization of the operated foot is required.

Intraoperative epidural anesthesia and postoperative analgesia with levobupivacaine for major orthopedic surgery: a double-blind, randomized comparison of racemic bupivacaine and ropivacaine.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the onset time and duration of epidural anesthesia, and the quality of postoperative analgesia produced by levobupivacaine, racemic bupivacaine, and ropivacaine. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. SETTING: Inpatient anesthesia at a University Hospital. PATIENTS: 45 ASA physical status I, II, and III patients, undergoing elective total hip replacement. INTERVENTIONS: After standard intravenous midazolam premedication and infusion of 500 mL of Ringer's acetate solution, patients were randomly allocated to receive epidural block with 0.5% levobupivacaine (n = 15), 0.5% bupivacaine (n = 15), or 0.5% ropivacaine (n = 15). Postoperatively, after pinprick sensation recovered at T(t), a patient-controlled epidural infusion was provided with 0.125% levobupivacaine, 0.125% bupivacaine, or 0.2% ropivacaine, respectively (baseline infusion rate 5 mL/hr; incremental bolus 2 mL, lockout time: 20 min). Intravenous ketoprofen was also available for rescue analgesia if required. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The onset time of sensory block was 31 +/- 16 minutes with levobupivacaine, 25 +/- 19 minutes with bupivacaine, and 30 +/- 24 minutes with ropivacaine (p = 0.98), after a median (range) volume of 15 (10-18) mL in Group Levobupivacaine, 14 (10-18) mL in Group Bupivacaine, and 15 (10-18) mL in Group Ropivacaine (p = 0.85). Six patients in the ropivacaine group (40%) showed an intraoperative Bromage score <2 as compared with only three patients of Group Levobupivacaine (20%) and no patient of Group Bupivacaine (p = 0.02). Recovery of pinprick sensation at T(t) occurred after 214 +/- 61 minutes with levobupivacaine, 213 +/- 53 minutes with bupivacaine, and 233 +/- 34 minutes with ropivacaine (p = 0.26). A similar degree of pain relief was observed in the three groups without differences in local anesthetic consumption and need for rescue analgesia. Motor blockade progressively resolved without differences among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Levobupivacaine 0.5% produces an epidural block of similar onset, quality, and duration as the one produced by the same volume of 0.5% bupivacaine, with a motor block deeper than that produced by 0.5% ropivacaine. When prolonging the block for the first 12 hours after surgery with a patient-controlled epidural infusion, 0.125% levobupivacaine provides adequate pain relief after major orthopedic surgery, with similar recovery of motor function as compared with 0.125% bupivacaine and 0.2% ropivacaine.