4.2 Article

Volume of ropivacaine 0.2% and sciatic nerve block duration: A randomized, blinded trial in healthy volunteers

Journal

ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 64, Issue 2, Pages 238-244

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aas.13489

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Innovation Fund Denmark [65-2014-3]
  2. Nordsjaellands Hospital

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Sciatic nerve blocks are used for many orthopaedic procedures on the knee, lower leg, foot and ankle. However, as nerve block durations vary considerably, the timing of supplemental analgesia is challenging. Therefore, knowledge on the effect of local anaesthetic (LA) dose on block duration is important to outweigh the benefits of increasing LA dose against the risk of LA systemic toxicity. In this randomized, double-blind trial, we aimed to explore the relationship between the volume of ropivacaine 0.2% and sciatic nerve block duration. We hypothesized that increasing LA volume would prolong block duration. Methods We randomized 60 healthy volunteers to receive one of five volumes of ropivacaine 0.2%: 5, 10, 15, 20, or 30 mL. We used an ultrasound-guided, catheter-based technique targeting the sciatic nerve in the infragluteal region. The primary outcome was sensory block duration defined as the time of insensitivity to a cold stimulus. Intergroup differences were tested using one-way ANOVA. Results Mean (SD) sensory block durations for the tibial nerve (TN) with increasing volume were: 9.3 hours (1.7), 10.4 hours (1.6), 9.7 hours (2.9), 10.7 hours (2.8) and 9.9 hours (2.6). Mean (SD) sensory block durations for the common peroneal nerve (CPN) were: 10.6 hours (2.7), 11.9 hours (1.5), 11.0 hours (3.3), 13.2 hours (3.7), and 13.5 hours (6.1). There were no intergroup differences (P = .67 [TN]; P = .25 [CPN]). Conclusion We found no effect of increasing the volume of ropivacaine 0.2% from 5 to 30 mL on sensory sciatic nerve block duration.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available