The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2026
Local wound anesthesia in spine surgery-a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Haupt Samuel, Laux Christoph Johannes, Maurer Steven Mark, Selman Farah, Lebeda Alexander, Dossi Stefani, Götschi Tobias, Catanzaro Sabrina, Bomberg Hagen, Eichenberger Urs, Farshad Mazda
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Effective postoperative pain control remains a major challenge in spine surgery. Local wound infiltration with anesthetics is a simple component of multimodal analgesia, yet high-quality comparative data between different infiltration regimens are limited.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of ropivacaine and levobupivacaine/tramadol wound infiltration compared with placebo in lumbar spine surgery.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial.
PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 125 patients undergoing elective primary or revision lumbar spine surgery.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative pain intensity (VAS 2-12 hours), opioid consumption (24 hours), length of hospital stay, sick leave, and adverse events.
METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive intraoperative epifascial and subcutaneous wound infiltration with either 0.9% saline (placebo), 0.75% ropivacaine, or 0.5% levobupivacaine+tramadol (100 mg). Outcomes were analyzed using mixed-effects linear models and nonparametric tests.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in postoperative pain scores or opioid consumption between treatment groups at any time point. Hospital stay and functional recovery were comparable. Sick leave duration was shorter in the ropivacaine group compared with placebo (p=.021). No infiltration-related adverse events occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: Local wound infiltration with ropivacaine or levobupivacaine/tramadol is safe but does not provide a clinically meaningful benefit in early postoperative pain control or opioid reduction after lumbar spine surgery. Broader multimodal strategies may be required to achieve optimal postoperative recovery.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of ropivacaine and levobupivacaine/tramadol wound infiltration compared with placebo in lumbar spine surgery.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial.
PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 125 patients undergoing elective primary or revision lumbar spine surgery.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative pain intensity (VAS 2-12 hours), opioid consumption (24 hours), length of hospital stay, sick leave, and adverse events.
METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive intraoperative epifascial and subcutaneous wound infiltration with either 0.9% saline (placebo), 0.75% ropivacaine, or 0.5% levobupivacaine+tramadol (100 mg). Outcomes were analyzed using mixed-effects linear models and nonparametric tests.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in postoperative pain scores or opioid consumption between treatment groups at any time point. Hospital stay and functional recovery were comparable. Sick leave duration was shorter in the ropivacaine group compared with placebo (p=.021). No infiltration-related adverse events occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: Local wound infiltration with ropivacaine or levobupivacaine/tramadol is safe but does not provide a clinically meaningful benefit in early postoperative pain control or opioid reduction after lumbar spine surgery. Broader multimodal strategies may be required to achieve optimal postoperative recovery.