Ropivacaine epidural anesthesia and analgesia versus general anesthesia and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine in the perioperative management of hip replacement. Ropivacaine Hip Replacement Multicenter Study Group

Anaesthetic care of patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty: consensus recommendations from the International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) based on a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding anaesthetic practice in hip/knee arthroplasty surgery is needed for improved healthcare outcomes.

METHODS

The International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) systematic review, including randomised controlled and observational studies comparing neuraxial to general anaesthesia regarding major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, genitourinary, thromboembolic, neurological, infectious, and bleeding complications. Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, from 1946 to May 17, 2018 were queried. Meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was utilised to assess evidence quality and to develop recommendations.

RESULTS

The analysis of 94 studies revealed that neuraxial anaesthesia was associated with lower odds or no difference in virtually all reported complications, except for urinary retention. Excerpt of complications for neuraxial vs general anaesthesia in hip/knee arthroplasty, respectively: mortality odds ratio (OR): 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-0.80/OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60-1.15; pulmonary OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.52-0.80/OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58-0.81; acute renal failure OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59-0.81/OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.65-0.82; deep venous thrombosis OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.42-0.65/OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64-0.93; infections OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.67-0.79/OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.76-0.85; and blood transfusion OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.82-0.89/OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.82-0.87.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendation: primary neuraxial anaesthesia is preferred for knee arthroplasty, given several positive postoperative outcome benefits; evidence level: low, weak recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION

neuraxial anaesthesia is recommended for hip arthroplasty given associated outcome benefits; evidence level: moderate-low, strong recommendation. Based on current evidence, the consensus group recommends neuraxial over general anaesthesia for hip/knee arthroplasty.

TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42018099935.

Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of two anesthetic gels (2% lignocaine and 20% benzocaine) in reducing pain during administration of local anesthesia - A randomized controlled trial

Background and Aims

Topical anesthetic agents are widely used in the field of pediatric dentistry to reduce pain and apprehension during administration of local anesthesia. Various topical anesthetic agents are available, among which the most commonly used ones are lignocaine and benzocaine. Hence we planned this study to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of topical anesthesia on needle insertion pain during administration of inferior alveolar nerve block.

Material and Methods

This double blind clinical study included 30 children of 4-8 years of age who were divided equally into two groups: Group A-2% lignocaine hydrochloride gel (Lox 2%) and Group B-20% benzocaine gel (ProGel-B). The intervention involved assessment of pain perception by the child during administration of inferior alveolar nerve block. The child's pain assessment was done using modified Wong-Baker pain rating scale. The ratings were subjected to statistical analysis.

Results

In Group A, 6.7% (N = 1) showed slight pain, 66.7% (N = 10) showed moderate pain, and 26.7% (N = 4) showed severe pain. In Group B, 46.7% (N = 7) showed no pain, 46% (N = 7) showed slight pain, and 6.7% (N = 1) showed moderate pain on needle insertion. (P value -0.000).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that there is a highly significant difference between the topical anesthetic effectiveness of 2% lignocaine and 20% benzocaine on needle insertion pain in inferior alveolar nerve block. Twenty percent benzocaine showed better results than 2% lignocaine in reducing the needle insertion pain.

Comparing the efficacy of pain managements after total hip arthroplasty: A network meta-analysis

The aim of our current study is to compare efficiency of various interventions implemented for pain management after total hip arthroplasty (THA). PubMed and EMBASE were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reporting the pain scales for evaluate the efficacy of pain control after THA including at least one pair of direct control groups. Pain scale values and the associated 95% credible interval (CrI) were used to describe efficacy. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) of each means of pain control was calculated to compare the relative ranking of different interventions. Thirty-five eligible literatures were involved in data analysis. The interventions for postoperative pain management we examined were psoas compartment block (PCB), posterior nerve block (PNB), fascia iliaca block (FIB), periarticular injection (PAI), femoral nerve block (FNB), lumbar plexus block (LPB), spinal anesthesia (SA), epidural analgesia (EPI), intrathecal morphine (IA), intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA), patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), onsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), local infiltration analgaesia (LIA), and reverse LIA (rLIA). In 0 to 6 hours analysis, patients under SA were found to have significantly lower pain score and SA was ranked the best. In 6 to 12 hours analysis, SA was found to be significantly more effective than other interventions and its SUCRA was the highest. No intervention showed a significant effect on reducing pain score for 12 to 24 hours and 24 to 48 hours after THA. SA is the best intervention to reduce THA postoperative pain in the first 24 hours. LPB is a better choice to reduce pain 12 to 48 hours after THA.

Efficacy and Safety of 3 Different Anesthesia Techniques Used in Total Hip Arthroplasty

Background

This study compared the efficacy and safety of 3 different anesthesia techniques used in total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Material/Methods

We allocated 198 patients preparing to undertake THA into 3 groups: general anesthesia group (GA group, n=66), caudal epidural anesthesia group (CEA group, n=66), and spinal-epidural anesthesia group (SEA group, n=66). We compared postoperative adverse effects occurring in patients of the 3 anesthesia groups. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, Minimum Mental State Examination (MMSE) score, and β-amyloid (Aβ) expression were calculated to determine the effects of different anesthesia on the postoperative pain and cognitive dysfunction of patients.

Results

The CEA and SEA groups had lower rates of perioperative adverse effects than in the GA group. Patients in the GA group required significantly higher administration of analgesics after the surgery than those in CEA and SEA groups. Higher Aβ expression levels and VAS scores, as well as lower MMSE scores, were also seen in the GA group compared with the other 2 groups.

Conclusions

CEA and SEA were more effective than GA in THA, and CEA seemed to be a better anesthesia technique than SEA.

Higher occurrence of nausea and vomiting after total hip arthroplasty using general versus spinal anesthesia: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Under the assumption that postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) may occur after total hip arthroplasty (THA) regardless of the anesthetic technique used, it is not clear whether general (GA) or spinal (SA) anesthesia has higher causal effect on this occurrence. Conflicting results have been reported.

METHODS

In this observational study, we selected all elective THA interventions performed in adults between 1999 and 2008 in a Swiss orthopedic clinic under general or spinal anesthesia. To assess the effect of anesthesia type on the occurrence of PONV, we used the propensity score and matching methods, which allowed us to emulate the design and results of an RCT.

RESULTS

Among 3922 procedures, 1984 (51 %) patients underwent GA, of which 4.1 % experienced PONV, and 1938 underwent SA, of which 3.5 % experienced PONV. We found that the average treatment effect on the treated, i.e. the effect of anesthesia type for a sample of individuals that actually received spinal anesthesia compared to individuals who received GA, was ATET = 2.00 % [95 % CI, 0.78-3.19 %], which translated into an OR = 1.97 [95 % CI 1.35; 2.87].

CONCLUSION

This suggests that the type of anesthesia is not neutral regarding PONV, general anesthesia being more strongly associated with PONV than spinal anesthesia in orthopedic surgery.

Clinical outcomes in patients with pulmonary hypertension undergoing total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is regarded as a risk factor for perioperative complications in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The objective of this retrospective case-control study was to evaluate the adverse outcomes of pulmonary hypertension patients undergoing elective unilateral hip replacements.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective case-control study of total hip replacement patients with pulmonary hypertension (cases) and without pulmonary hypertension (control). From the years 2003 to 2008, we identified a total of 132 patients undergoing primary total hip replacements with a diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension (right ventricular systolic pressure >35). The primary outcome assessed was the incidence of adverse events that occurred during the postoperative hospital stay. Secondary outcomes studied included length of hospital stay, mortality, and ability to reach certain physical therapy milestones.

RESULTS

The PH group had significantly more adverse events than the control group. Nonlethal cardiac dysrhythmias comprised the most common adverse outcome among the PH group. Overall, the PH group had a morbidity rate of 34.7% while the control had a rate of 21%. The PH group had longer hospital stay (6.7 days vs. 5.9). Both groups had zero mortality during the hospital stay. The PH group had comparable rehabilitation recovery times than the control group.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective case-control study demonstrates that pulmonary hypertension patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty are more prone to adverse outcomes, especially cardiac dysrhythmias, and longer hospital stays.

Neuraxial blockade for the prevention of postoperative mortality and major morbidity: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Various beneficial effects derived from neuraxial blocks have been reported. However, it is unclear whether these effects have an influence on perioperative mortality and major pulmonary/cardiovascular complications.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to summarize Cochrane systematic reviews that assess the effects of neuraxial blockade on perioperative rates of death, chest infection and myocardial infarction by integrating the evidence from all such reviews that have compared neuraxial blockade with or without general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia alone for different types of surgery in various populations. Our secondary objective was to summarize the evidence on adverse effects (an adverse event for which a causal relation between the intervention and the event is at least a reasonable possibility) of neuraxial blockade. Within the reviews, studies were selected using the same criteria.

METHODS

A search was performed in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on July 13, 2012. We have (1) included all Cochrane systematic reviews that examined participants of any age undergoing any type of surgical (open or endoscopic) procedure, (2) compared neuraxial blockade versus general anaesthesia alone for surgical anaesthesia or neuraxial blockade plus general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia alone for surgical anaesthesia and (3) included death, chest infection, myocardial infarction and/or serious adverse events as outcomes. Neuraxial blockade could consist of epidural, caudal, spinal or combined spinal-epidural techniques administered as a bolus or by continuous infusion. Studies included in these reviews were selected on the basis of the same criteria. Reviews and studies were selected independently by two review authors, who independently performed data extraction when data differed from one of the selected reviews. Data were analysed by using Review Manager Version 5.1 and Comprehensive Meta Analysis Version 2.2.044.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine Cochrane reviews were selected for this overview. Their scores on the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire varied from four to six of a maximal possible score of seven. Compared with general anaesthesia, neuraxial blockade reduced the zero to 30-day mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.94; I(2) = 0%) based on 20 studies that included 3006 participants. Neuraxial blockade also decreased the risk of pneumonia (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.79; I(2) = 0%) based on five studies that included 400 participants. No difference was detected in the risk of myocardial infarction between the two techniques (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.37; I(2) = 0%) based on six studies with 849 participants. Compared with general anaesthesia alone, the addition of a neuraxial block to general anaesthesia did not affect the zero to 30-day mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.51; I(2) = 0%) based on 18 studies with 3228 participants. No difference was detected in the risk of myocardial infarction between combined neuraxial blockade-general anaesthesia and general anaesthesia alone (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09; I(2) = 0%) based on eight studies that included 1580 participants. The addition of a neuraxial block to general anaesthesia reduced the risk of pneumonia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.98; I(2) = 9%) after adjustment for publication bias and based on nine studies that included 2433 participants. The quality of the evidence was judged as moderate for all six comparisons.No serious adverse events (seizure or cardiac arrest related to local anaesthetic toxicity, prolonged central or peripheral neurological injury lasting longer than one month or infection secondary to neuraxial blockade) were reported. The quality of the reporting score of complications related to neuraxial blocks was nine (four to 12 (median range)) of a possible maximum score of 14.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with general anaesthesia, a central neuraxial block may reduce the zero to 30-day mortality for patients undergoing surgery with intermediate to high cardiac risk (level of evidence, moderate). Further research is required.

Ropivacaine: A review of its pharmacology and clinical use

Ropivacaine is a long-acting amide local anaesthetic agent and first produced as a pure enantiomer. It produces effects similar to other local anaesthetics via reversible inhibition of sodium ion influx in nerve fibres. Ropivacaine is less lipophilic than bupivacaine and is less likely to penetrate large myelinated motor fibres, resulting in a relatively reduced motor blockade. Thus, ropivacaine has a greater degree of motor sensory differentiation, which could be useful when motor blockade is undesirable. The reduced lipophilicity is also associated with decreased potential for central nervous system toxicity and cardiotoxicity. The drug displays linear and dose proportional pharmacokinetics (up to 80 mg administered intravenously). It is metabolised extensively in the liver and excreted in urine. The present article details the clinical applications of ropivacaine and its current place as a local anaesthetic in the group.

Neuroaxial versus general anaesthesia in geriatric patients for hip fracture surgery: does it matter?

The influence of the mode of anaesthesia on outcome of geriatric patients with hip fractures is a controversial issue in the medical literature. In the light of an ageing society, a conclusive answer to this question is of growing importance. The purpose of this review was to assess the effect of neuroaxial and general anaesthesia on mortality and morbidity in geriatric patients sustaining a hip fracture. Following a current literature search within the Pubmed and Cochrane database (1967-2010), 34 randomised controlled trials, 14 observational studies and eight reviews/meta-analysis publications were included. Potentially outcome-influencing factors such as mortality, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, postoperative confusion and other anaesthesia-related outcomes were evaluated. After analysing the current literature with 56 references, covering 18,715 patients with hip fracture, it can be concluded that spinal anaesthesia is associated with significantly reduced early mortality, fewer incidents of deep vein thrombosis, less acute postoperative confusion, a tendency to fewer myocardial infarctions, fewer cases of pneumonia, fatal pulmonary embolism and postoperative hypoxia. General anaesthesia has the advantages of having a lower incidence of hypotension and a tendency towards fewer cerebrovascular accidents compared to neuroaxial anaesthesia. Otherwise, general anaesthesia and respiratory diseases were significant predictors of morbidity in hip fracture patients. These data suggest that regional anaesthesia is the preferred technique, but the limited evidence available does not permit a definitive conclusion to be drawn for mortality or other outcomes. For hip fracture surgery, the choice of anaesthesia (general or neuroaxial) is made by the anaesthesiologist and is based on the patient's preference, comorbidities, potential general postoperative complications and the clinical experience of the anaesthesiologist. The overall therapeutic approach in hip fracture care should be determined jointly by the orthopaedic surgeon, the geriatrician and the anaesthesiologist (multidisciplinary approach).

A comparison of regional and general anaesthesia for total replacement of the hip or knee: a meta-analysis

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the relative efficacy of regional and general anaesthesia in patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement. A comprehensive search for relevant studies was performed in PubMed (1966 to April 2008), EMBASE (1969 to April 2008) and the Cochrane Library. Only randomised studies comparing regional and general anaesthesia for total hip or knee replacement were included. We identified 21 independent, randomised clinical trials. A random-effects model was used to calculate all effect sizes. Pooled results from these trials showed that regional anaesthesia reduces the operating time (odds ratio (OR) -0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.33 to -0.05), the need for transfusion (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.94) and the incidence of thromboembolic disease (deep-vein thrombosis OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.84; pulmonary embolism OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.80). Regional anaesthesia therefore seems to improve the outcome of patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement.

Ropivacaine: a review of its use in regional anaesthesia and acute pain management

Ropivacaine (Naropin) is the pure S(-)-enantiomer of propivacaine, and is a long-acting amide local anaesthetic agent, eliciting nerve block via reversible inhibition of sodium ion influx in nerve fibres. Ropivacaine is a well tolerated regional anaesthetic effective for surgical anaesthesia as well as the relief of postoperative and labour pain. The efficacy of ropivacaine is similar to that of bupivacaine and levobupivacaine for peripheral nerve blocks and, although it may be slightly less potent than bupivacaine when administered epidurally or intrathecally, equi-effective doses have been established. Clinically adequate doses of ropivacaine appear to be associated with a lower incidence or grade of motor block than bupivacaine. Thus ropivacaine, with its efficacy, lower propensity for motor block and reduced potential for CNS toxicity and cardiotoxicity, appears to be an important option for regional anaesthesia and for the management of postoperative and labour pain.

A procedure-specific systematic review and consensus recommendations for analgesia after total hip replacement

Total hip replacement is a major surgical procedure usually associated with significant pain in the early postoperative period. Several anaesthetic and analgesic techniques are in common clinical use for this procedure but, to date, clinical studies of pain after total hip replacement have not been systematically assessed. Using the Cochrane protocol, we have conducted a systematic review of analgesic, anaesthetic and surgical interventions affecting postoperative pain after total hip replacement. In addition to the review, transferable evidence from other relevant procedures and clinical practice observations collated by the Delphi method were used to develop evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of postoperative pain. For primary total hip replacement, PROSPECT recommends either general anaesthesia combined with a peripheral nerve block that is continued after surgery or an intrathecal (spinal) injection of local anaesthetic and opioid. The primary analgesic technique should be combined with a step-down approach using paracetamol plus conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, with strong or weak opioids as required.

Postoperative extradural analgesia with morphine and ropivacaine. A double-blind comparison between placebo and ropivacaine 10 mg/h or 16 mg/h

BACKGROUND

Some controversy exists in the literature on the benefit of epidurals compared to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA). Also, the dose of ropivacaine for epidural analgesia when combined with morphine remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the epidural vs. PCA technique and high-dose vs. low-dose ropivacaine combined with morphine during knee replacement surgery.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, postoperative pain relief with a combination of epidural ropivacaine (Group L: 10 mg h-1, Group H: 16 mg h-1) and morphine (0.16 mg h-1) was evaluated in 30 patients. A placebo group (Group PL) of 15 patients having PCA morphine served as the control. Visual analog pain (VAS), morphine consumption, sensory and motor block and side-effects were recorded during 48 h.

RESULTS

VAS scores at rest were significantly lower in Groups L and H compared to Group PL. On movement, Group H had lower VAS scores than Group PL during 3-27 h (P<0.05) and Group L during 4-9 h (P<0.05), while Group L had lower a VAS than Group PL during 9-18 h (P<0.05). Morphine consumption after 48 h was greater in Group PL (64.6+/-36.3 mg) vs. Group L (23.3+/-33.9 mg) (P<0.001) and Group H (4.3+/-9.6 mg) (P<0.0001). Mild motor block was seen in Group H in 20% and 14% patients at 24 h and 48 h, respectively, but time to mobilization was similar between the groups. Pruritus was more common in the ropivacaine groups (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Lumbar epidural analgesia using a combination of ropivacaine (16 mg h-1) and morphine (0.16 mg h-1) provides superior analgesia compared to the PCA technique or ropivacaine (10 mg h-1) and morphine (0.16 mg h-1). Although this resulted in a mild motor block during the first 12 h, patient mobilization was similar in all groups.

Ropivacaine: an update of its use in regional anaesthesia

Ropivacaine is a long-acting, enantiomerically pure (S-enantiomer) amide local anaesthetic with a high pKa and low lipid solubility which blocks nerve fibres involved in pain transmission (Adelta and C fibres) to a greater degree than those controlling motor function (Abeta fibres). The drug was less cardiotoxic than equal concentrations of racemic bupivacaine but more so than lidocaine (lignocaine) in vitro and had a significantly higher threshold for CNS toxicity than racemic bupivacaine in healthy volunteers (mean maximum tolerated unbound arterial plasma concentrations were 0.56 and 0.3 mg/L, respectively). Extensive clinical data have shown that epidural ropivacaine 0.2% is effective for the initiation and maintenance of labour analgesia, and provides pain relief after abdominal or orthopaedic surgery especially when given in conjunction with opioids (coadministration with opioids may also allow for lower concentrations of ropivacaine to be used). The drug had efficacy generally similar to that of the same dose of bupivacaine with regard to pain relief but caused less motor blockade at low concentrations. Lumbar epidural administration of 20 to 30ml ropivacaine 0.5% provided anaesthesia of a similar quality to that achieved with bupivacaine 0.5% in women undergoing caesarean section, but the duration of motor blockade was shorter with ropivacaine. For lumbar epidural anaesthesia for lower limb or genitourinary surgery, comparative data suggest that higher concentrations of ropivacaine (0.75 or 1.0%) may be needed to provide the same sensory and motor blockade as bupivacaine 0.5 and 0.75%. In patients about to undergo upper limb surgery, 30 to 40ml ropivacaine 0.5% produced brachial plexus anaesthesia broadly similar to that achieved with equivalent volumes of bupivacaine 0.5%, although the time to onset of sensory block tended to be faster and the duration of motor block shorter with ropivacaine. Ropivacaine had an adverse event profile similar to that of bupivacaine in clinical trials. Several cases of CNS toxicity have been reported after inadvertent intravascular administration of ropivacaine, but only 1 case of cardiovascular toxicity has been reported to date. The outcome of these inadvertent intravascular administrations was favourable.

CONCLUSION

Ropivacaine is a well tolerated regional anaesthetic with an efficacy broadly similar to that of bupivacaine. However, it may be a preferred option because of its reduced CNS and cardiotoxic potential and its lower propensity for motor block.