Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2011
Subacromial patient-controlled analgesia with ropivacaine provides effective pain control after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Yun Mi Ja, Oh Joo Han, Yoon Jong Pil, Park Sang Hyun, Hwang Jung Won, Kil Ho Young
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate the postoperative analgesic effect of subacromial patient-controlled analgesia (SA-PCA) with ropivacaine in comparison with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.
METHODS: Sixty patients were prospectively randomized into one of the two types of analgesics for 48 h after the operation. In the SA-PCA group, patients received 0.5% ropivacaine at a rate of 2 ml/h with a patient-controlled bolus dose of 2 ml. In the IV-PCA group, patients received intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. Pain relief was regularly assessed using visual analog scale (VAS) for 48 h, and side effects were noted.
RESULTS: The postoperative pain VAS at 1 h after the operation was lower for the SA-PCA group (4.3 ± 2.7) than for the IV-PCA group (6.3 ± 2.6, P = 0.009). The frequency of requested bolus doses by patients in the IV-PCA (19 ± 19) was higher than in the SA-PCA (7 ± 10, P = 0.04). Rescue opioid or NSAID requirements were not different. More patients in the IV-PCA (17/30) experienced nausea than in the SA-PCA (7/30, P = 0.03). Patient satisfaction was higher in the SA-PCA than in the IV-PCA [6.7 (3-10) vs. 5.6 (0-8), P = 0.04]. The mean total venous plasma concentration of ropivacaine at 8 and 24 h was below the maximum tolerated venous plasma concentration, and symptoms of systemic toxicity were not noted during 48 h in the SA-PCA.
CONCLUSIONS: The analgesic effect of subacromial patient-controlled analgesia with ropivacaine was better than intravenous analgesia during the immediate postoperative period with fewer side effects.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level I.
METHODS: Sixty patients were prospectively randomized into one of the two types of analgesics for 48 h after the operation. In the SA-PCA group, patients received 0.5% ropivacaine at a rate of 2 ml/h with a patient-controlled bolus dose of 2 ml. In the IV-PCA group, patients received intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. Pain relief was regularly assessed using visual analog scale (VAS) for 48 h, and side effects were noted.
RESULTS: The postoperative pain VAS at 1 h after the operation was lower for the SA-PCA group (4.3 ± 2.7) than for the IV-PCA group (6.3 ± 2.6, P = 0.009). The frequency of requested bolus doses by patients in the IV-PCA (19 ± 19) was higher than in the SA-PCA (7 ± 10, P = 0.04). Rescue opioid or NSAID requirements were not different. More patients in the IV-PCA (17/30) experienced nausea than in the SA-PCA (7/30, P = 0.03). Patient satisfaction was higher in the SA-PCA than in the IV-PCA [6.7 (3-10) vs. 5.6 (0-8), P = 0.04]. The mean total venous plasma concentration of ropivacaine at 8 and 24 h was below the maximum tolerated venous plasma concentration, and symptoms of systemic toxicity were not noted during 48 h in the SA-PCA.
CONCLUSIONS: The analgesic effect of subacromial patient-controlled analgesia with ropivacaine was better than intravenous analgesia during the immediate postoperative period with fewer side effects.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level I.