A prospective study comparing the analgesic efficacy of levobupivacaine, ropivacaine and bupivacaine in pediatric patients undergoing caudal blockade

被引:54
作者
Breschan, C
Jost, R
Krumpholz, R
Schaumberger, F
Stettner, H
Marhofer, P
Likar, R
机构
[1] LKH Klagenfurt, Dept Anaesthesia, A-9020 Klagenfurt, Austria
[2] Univ Klagenfurt, Dept Anaesthesia, Klagenfurt, Austria
[3] Univ Klagenfurt, Dept Biostat, Klagenfurt, Austria
[4] Univ Vienna, Dept Anaesthesia, Vienna, Austria
关键词
caudal extradural; analgesia; levobupivacaine; ropivacaine; bupivacaine;
D O I
10.1111/j.1460-9592.2004.01443.x
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background: The aim of our study was to compare postoperative analgesic efficacy, analgesic duration and motor blockade of levobupivacaine, ropivacaine and bupivacaine administered caudally in equal concentrations to children undergoing elective minor surgery. Methods: In the study, 182 children, aged 1-7 years, undergoing either inguinal hernia repair or orchidopexy, were randomly allocated to one of the three groups. They received via a caudal extradural either 1 ml.kg(-1) levobupivacaine 0.2% (Group L) or 1 ml.kg(-1) ropivacaine 0.2% (Group R) or 1 ml.kg(-1) bupivacaine 0.2% (Group B). Results: No statistically significant difference was noted in age, weight, duration of the operation or level of the caudal block between the groups. The onset of analgesia was significantly later after levobupivacaine. Postoperative pain scoring evaluated with Children's and Infant's Postoperative Pain Scale observational scale showed no statistical difference between groups. Median postoperative analgesia was 5.75 h (SEMed: +/- 0.65) in Group L, 5.7 h (SEMed: +/- 0.8) in Group R and 5.35 h (SEMed: +/- 1.3) in Group B the difference being statistically nonsignificant. Conclusions: The degree of motor block was significantly less after ropivacaine and levobupivacaine during the first 2 h postoperatively.
引用
收藏
页码:301 / 306
页数:6
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]   Levobupivacaine 0.25% compared with ropivacaine 0.25% by the caudal route in children [J].
Astuto, M ;
Disma, N ;
Arena, C .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2003, 20 (10) :826-830
[2]  
Breschan C, 1998, ANAESTHESIST, V47, P290, DOI 10.1007/s001010050559
[3]   COMPARISON OF EXTRADURAL ROPIVACAINE AND BUPIVACAINE [J].
BROCKWAY, MS ;
BANNISTER, J ;
MCCLURE, JH ;
MCKEOWN, D ;
WILDSMITH, JAW .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 1991, 66 (01) :31-37
[4]  
Bromage P R, 1965, Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Suppl, V16, P55
[5]  
BUTTNER W, 1990, ANAESTHESIST, V39, P593
[6]   Analysis of behavioural and physiological parameters for the assessment of postoperative analgesic demand in newborns, infants and young children:: a comprehensive report on seven consecutive studies [J].
Büttner, W ;
Finke, W .
PAEDIATRIC ANAESTHESIA, 2000, 10 (03) :303-318
[7]  
COOK B, 1995, BRIT J ANAESTH, V75, P277
[8]   Caudal anaesthesia with 0.375% ropivacaine or 0.375% bupivacaine in paediatric patients [J].
Da Conceicao, MJ ;
Coelho, L .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 1998, 80 (04) :507-508
[9]  
Da Conceicao MJ, 1999, PAEDIATR ANAESTH, V9, P229, DOI 10.1046/j.1460-9592.1999.00342.x
[10]   Cardiac and CNS toxicity of levobupivacaine - Strength of evidence for advantage over bupivacaine [J].
Gristwood, RW .
DRUG SAFETY, 2002, 25 (03) :153-163