4.6 Article

Improving Continuous Wound Infusion Effectiveness for Postoperative Analgesia After Cesarean Delivery A Randomized Controlled Trial

Journal

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
Volume 116, Issue 4, Pages 893-900

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f38ac6

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate in which anatomical layer (above the fascia or below the fascia) continuous wound infusion of local anesthetic, combined with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, through a multiorifice catheter has the best effectiveness during the first 48 hours on postoperative pain intensity after elective cesarean delivery. METHODS: Fifty-six women undergoing elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive 48-hour continuous wound infusion either above the fascia or below the fascia using ropivacaine and ketoprofene through a multiholed wound catheter. No other systemic analgesics were used, except for rescue patient-controlled intravenous morphine. Evaluation by a blinded investigator included visual analog scale scores at rest and at movement, morphine consumption, patient satisfaction, residual pain at 1 and 6 months, and undesirable side effects. RESULTS: Continuous wound infusion below the fascia resulted in significantly reduced pain at rest and total postoperative morphine consumption (15.7 mg, 95% confidence interval 9.7-20.7 mg) compared with wound administration above the fascia (26.4 mg, 95% confidence interval 18.1-34.7). No undesirable side effects or residual pain requiring treatment were recorded in both groups, whereas analgesia and satisfaction were excellent. CONCLUSION: After cesarean delivery, continuous wound infusion over 48 hours with ropivacaine and ketoprofene through a multiholed wound catheter inserted below the fascia results in better analgesia when compared with administration above the fascia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available