4.6 Article

Paravertebral block with ropivacaine 0.5% versus systemic analgesia for pain relief after thoracotomy

Journal

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 79, Issue 6, Pages 2109-2114

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.07.030

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. Paravertebral block in combination to intravenous analgesics could be an alternative to epidural analgesia for postoperative pain control after thoracotomy, but it has been scarcely evaluated so far. We thus assessed the efficacy of paravertebral block using a continuous infusion of ropivacaine in a multimodal analgesic approach. Description. Forty patients were randomized to receive ketoprofen, paracetamol, and patient-controlled-analgesia (PCA) with intravenous morphine (control group) or the same treatment with a continuous 48-hour infusion of ropivacaine 0.5% (0.1 mL/kg(-1)/h(-1)) in a thoracic paravertebral catheter (thoracic paravertebral block [TPVB] group). Visual analog scale (VAS) at rest and when coughing, morphine consumption, and side effects were recorded during the first 48 hours after surgery. Venous blood was sampled at 24 and 48 hours for ropivacaine plasma concentration measurements. Evaluation. Mean VAS scores at rest and when coughing were significantly decreased in the TPBV group (p < 0.005). Despite a decrease in the morphine-titrated dose given in the postanesthesia care unit, cumulated morphine consumption was not significantly different between the two groups (51 +/- 29 mg and 57 24 mg in the TPVB and control groups, respectively). Side effects (nausea, vomiting, urinary retention) were less frequent in the TPBV group (30% vs 75%; p < 0.005). Plasma ropivacaine concentrations remained below the toxic threshold. Conclusions. Continuous paravertebral ropivacaine 0.5% infusion improves pain control after thoracic surgery using a multimodal analgesic approach. (c) 2005 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

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