Intentional lateral epidural catheter placement for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Unilateral epidural block might constitute a clinical option in lower limb orthopedic surgery. METHODS: Seventy-five patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) were randomized to either a laterally directed epidural catheter (IUEC, n = 40) or a classic midline catheter (CMEC, n = 35). Paresthesia encountered during catheter insertion was registered. The start dose of the anesthetic mixture clonidine 60 microg (0.4 ml), sufentanil 15 microg (0.3 ml) and ropivacaine 10 mg ml(-1)(10.3 ml) in 11 ml of total volume) was set at 5 ml and was increased by 2 ml if anesthesia was inadequate after assessment for sensory blockade to cold and pin-prick. Data were registered intra- and postoperatively regarding pain scores as well as motor block, hemodynamic parameters, adverse effects and need for supplemental analgesia other than a continuous postoperative epidural infusion. RESULTS: In the IUEC group 80% of patients reported a light paresthesia of the affected side during catheter insertion, whereas 71% of patients in the CMEC group reported no paresthesia at all. The amount of anesthetic used to establish surgical anesthesia was lower in the IUEC group (6.2 +/- 0.8 vs. 8 +/- 1.9 ml, P < 0.001). Motor block (Bromage score) of the unaffected side was significantly lower in the IUEC group (P < 0.001). Pain intensity scores, hemodynamic parameters, and supplemental analgesia given were similar between the two groups except for VAS scores at 12 h postoperatively, which were higher in the CMEC group (P < 0.01). Urinary retention was significantly more frequent in the CMEC group (19/35 vs. 5/40, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the IUEC technique is a feasible and efficient method for providing anesthesia and analgesia for ACLR and is associated with a lower consume of anesthetics, less motor block and a reduced incidence of urinary retention.

Combined general and epidural anesthesia with ropivacaine for renal transplantation.

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of epidural ropivacaine anesthesia in association with light general anesthesia during renal transplantation and compare epidural and endovenous analgesia techniques for postoperative pain control. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: prospective randomized study. SETTING: Organ Transplantation Center, Department of Surgery, "Tor Vergata" University of Rome, St. Eugenio Hospital, Rome. PATIENTS: 25 patients affected by chronic renal failure were enrolled in this study. Thirteen constituted the combined epidural-general anesthesia group (EPI-GEN), mean age 40.15+/-9.81 years; while the others constituted the general anesthesia group (GEN), mean age 46.75+/-7.45 years. Operation: cadaveric renal transplantation. Group EPI-GEN: epidural anesthesia performed with 12-15 ml of a ropivacaine 0.75% and fentanyl 5 microg/ml solution followed by light intravenous or inhalatory general anesthesia and postoperative epidural analgesia with ropivacaine 0.2% and fentanyl 2 mg/ml. Group GEN: inhalatory or intravenous general anesthesia and intravenous tramadol postoperative analgesia. MEASUREMENTS: hemo-dynamics, renal function, arterial blood gases analysis, acid-base balance and postoperative pain data was collected and examined. RESULTS: Postoperative epidural analgesia resulted significantly more effective than intravenous tramadol. PaO(2)/FiO(2) ratio was significantly higher in group EPI-GEN patients both on awakening and throughout postoperative observation. Hemodynamics and renal function did not appear to differ significantly. CONCLUSION: Combined epidural-general anesthesia is as valid a technique as any for renal transplantation; however postoperative epidural ropivacaine analgesia resulted more effective than intravenous tramadol. Respiratory function appeared less affected, facilitating a fast and uncomplicated postoperative recovery.

Comparison of epidural, continuous femoral block and intraarticular analgesia after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare three locoregional techniques of pain management after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: Sixty ASA I-II subjects were enrolled after obtaining written informed consent. Patients were randomly allocated to three groups of 20 subjects. The first group (EPI) received epidural ropivacaine 0.2% plus sufentanil 0.2 micro g ml-1, at 5 ml h-1. Patients in the second group (CFB) were given a continuous infusion of the same analgesic mixture through a femoral catheter. The third group (IA) received a continuous intraarticular infusion of ropivacaine 0.2% plus sufentanil 0.2 micro g ml-1, at 5 ml h-1. All subjects were allowed PCA boluses of 5 ml of local anesthetic. Analgesia was assessed for 36 h after the end of surgery by means of a visual analog scale (VAS) and a verbal scale (VS), as well as the number of PCA boluses administered and the amount of supplementary i.v. ketorolac, if given. RESULTS: The VAS and VS scores were significantly higher in group IA during the 24 h following surgery. Ketorolac requirement was higher in group IA throughout the postoperative observation. Adverse effects were similar in all groups except for urinary retention, which was significantly more frequent in group EPI. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that either epidural or continuous femoral nerve block provide adequate pain relief in patients who undergo ACLR, whereas intraarticular analgesia seems unable to cope satisfactorily with the analgesic requirements of this surgical procedure.