RESUMEN
Since being reported in 2008, high volume local infiltration analgesia (HVLIA) has rapidly gained popularity for patients undergoing hip and knee replacement. We undertook this review to investigate whether there was evidence for equivalence of HVLIA compared to peripheral nerve block techniques with respect to early postoperative analgesia and functional recovery, or for other outcomes such as cost and process efficiency, persistent postsurgical pain and arthroplasty revision rate. We found that despite the popularity of HVLIA, supporting evidence for its use is currently limited. HVLIA certainly provides postoperative analgesia, but it is not clear whether it is equivalent to contemporary peripheral nerve block techniques in terms of either analgesia or early or later functional outcome in the context of a modern, comprehensive enhanced recovery program. Nor is it possible to state whether HVLIA provides benefits in terms of persistent postsurgical pain or cost and process efficiency. Well designed trials directly comparing peripheral nerve block with a standardised HVLIA technique are urgently required.
Asunto(s)
Analgesia/métodos , Anestesia Local/métodos , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera/métodos , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla/métodos , Bloqueo Nervioso/métodos , Nervios Periféricos , Amidas , Analgesia/economía , Anestesia Local/economía , Anestésicos Locales , Antiinflamatorios no Esteroideos , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera/economía , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla/economía , Costos y Análisis de Costo , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Humanos , Ketorolaco , Dolor Postoperatorio/epidemiología , Reoperación/estadística & datos numéricos , Ropivacaína , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Early studies suggested that ropivacaine had clinical advantages over bupivacaine with respect to cardiotoxicity and motor block, and that it was suitable for epidural caesarean section. This study was set up to compare epidural 0.75% ropivacaine with a popular bupivacaine/fentanyl mixture for elective caesarean section. METHODS: Eighty women having elective caesarean section under epidural anaesthesia were randomly allocated to receive 20 mL of either 0.75% ropivacaine or 0.5% bupivacaine plus fentanyl 100 microg. Supplementation with 2% plain lidocaine was used where necessary. Times were recorded for onset of sensory block, density and duration of motor block, and the need for supplementation. RESULTS: There was no difference between the groups in the time (mean [SD]) to achieve sensory blockade to cold to T4 (ropivacaine 15.8 [5.6] min, bupivacaine/fentanyl 18.7 [9.1] min, P=0.13) or to S1 (ropivacaine 18.3 [4.6] min, bupivacaine/fentanyl 17.4 [7.6] min, P=0.59), or in the need for supplementation. However, ropivacaine produced a motor block that was denser (median Bromage score ropivacaine 3, bupivacaine/fentanyl 1.5, P=0.0041), and of longer duration (ropivacaine 237 [84] min, bupivacaine/fentanyl 144 [76] min, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that epidural 0.75% ropivacaine without opioid may be used as an alternative to bupivacaine 0.5% with fentanyl for elective caesarean section, but it does not induce anaesthesia any faster and may result in a denser, more prolonged, motor block.