No abstract

Background and Aims: The role of epidural analgesia in laparoscopic surgeries remains controversial. We evaluated intraoperative analgesic effects of epidural ropivacaine versus intravenous fentanyl in laparoscopic abdominal surgery and assessed postoperative analgesic requirements, hemodynamic changes, time to ambulation, and length of stay (LOS) in the ICU. Material and Methods: Seventy-two American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I–III adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic abdominal surgeries were randomized to either 0.5 mg/kg/h intravenous fentanyl (Group C) or 0.2% epidural ropivacaine at 5–8 mL/h (Group E) infusions intraoperatively and 0.25 m/kg/h fentanyl and 0.1% epidural ropivacaine infusions respectively postoperatively. Variations in mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 20% from baseline were points of intervention for propofol and analgesia with fentanyl or vasopressors. The number of interventions and total doses of fentanyl and vasopressors were noted. Postoperative analgesia was assessed at 0, 6, 12, and 24 h and when pain was reported with numerical rating scale and objective pain scores. Chi-square test and Student’s t-test were used for categorical and continuous variable analysis. Results: Intraoperatively, 14 patients versus 4 needed additional fentanyl and 26 versus 14 needed additional propofol in groups C and E respectively (P = 0.007, P = 0.004). MAP at 0, 6 and 18 h was lower in Group E. Pain scores were better in Group E at 6,18, and 24 h postoperatively. Time to ambulation was comparable but LOS ICU was prolonged in Group E (P = 0.05) Conclusion: Epidural ropivacaine produces superior intraoperative analgesia and improved postoperative pain scores without affecting ambulation but increases vasopressor need and LOS ICU in comparison with intravenous fentanyl in laparoscopic abdominal surgeries.

No abstract

Background and Aims: Epidural analgesia is widely used for pain relief but confirmation of accurate epidural placement is poorly understood. We proposed that sensory blockade to cold sensation would predict the accurate placement of epidural. The primary outcome was the assessment of sensory blockade at 5 and 10 min with a standard epidural test dose versus test dose with additional saline. We looked at haemodynamic changes following administration as secondary outcomes. Methods: Following Ethics Committee approval, 161 patients presenting for elective abdominal surgery needing epidural analgesia with general anaesthesia were randomly allocated into Group 1 receiving standard test dose (3 ml of 2% lignocaine with 1:2,00,000 adrenaline) or Group 2 (standard test dose with 6 ml of saline) epidurally. The blockade to cold sensation was assessed at 5 and 10 min. The heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded at baseline, 1, 5, and 10 min following epidural dosing. Statistical analysis was performed with Chi-square test for categorical and Student's t -test for continuous variables. Results: The sensory blockade at 5 min was 69.5% versus 82.3% ( P = 0.059), and at 10 min 85.4% versus 97.5% ( P = 0.01) in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. The MAP at 5 min ( P = 0.032) and the HR and MAP at 10 min ( P = 0.015, 0.04) were significantly lower in Group 2. Conclusion: An epidural test dose of 3 ml followed by additional 6 ml saline accurately predicted sensory blockade to cold at 10 min in comparison to the standard dose of 3 ml but was associated with a decrease in the HR and MAP.

No abstract