HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Juan J. Fibla Laureano Molins Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Fibla, J. J. Articles by Vidal, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Fibla, J. J. Articles by Vidal, G. Related Collections Anesthesia Lung - cancer Lung - other

Comparative analysis of analgesic quality in the postoperative of thoracotomy: paravertebral block with bupivacaine 0.5% vs ropivacaine 0.2%

^a Department of Thoracic Surgery, Hospital Universitari Sagrat Cor., C/Viladomat 288, 08029 Barcelona, Spain
^b Department of Anesthesia, Hospital Universitari Sagrat Cor., C/Viladomat 288, 08029 Barcelona, Spain

Received 25 July 2007; received in revised form 4 December 2007; accepted 10 December 2007.

^_* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 934948922; fax: +34 934052641. (Email: juanjofibla{at}hotmail.com).

	Abstract

Top Abstract 1. Introduction 2. Materials and methods 3. Results 4. Discussion References

 
Objectives: Paravertebral block is an effective alternative to epidural analgesia in the management of post-thoracotomy pain, however, there are no established guidelines regarding what is the most suitable strategy when varying drugs and dosages between different groups. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of paravertebral block comparing the most frequently employed drugs in this procedure (bupivacaine vs ropivacaine). Methods: Prospective randomized study of 70 patients submitted to thoracotomy. Patients were divided in two independent groups (anterior thoracotomy (AT) and posterolateral thoracotomy (PT)). At the end of surgery a catheter was inserted under direct vision in the thoracic paravertebral space at the level of incision. In each group (AT or PT) patients were randomized to receive a bolus of 15 ml of bupivacaine 0.5% or 20 ml of ropivacaine 0.2% before closing the thoracotomy. They postoperatively received 10 ml of bupivacaine or 15 ml of ropivacaine every 6 h combined with methamizol (every 6 h). Subcutaneous meperidine was employed as rescue drug. The level of pain was measured with the visual analogic scale (VAS) at 1, 6, 24, 48 and 72 h after surgery. The need of meperidine as rescue drug and secondary effects was also recorded. Results: We did not register secondary effects in relation to the paravertebral catheter (paravertebral or cutaneous bleeding or hematoma, respiratory depression (respiratory rate <8 breaths per minute), cardiotoxicity, confusion, sedation, urinary retention, nausea, vomiting and pruritus). Eleven patients (16%) needed meperidine as rescue drug (six with ropivacaine and five with bupivacaine). Mean VAS values were the following: all the cases (n = 70): 5.2 ± 2.1, AT (n = 38): 4.5 ± 2.1, PT (n = 32): 5.9 ± 1.7, bupivacaine (n = 35): 4.9 ± 2.1, ropivacaine (n = 35): 5.4 ± 1.9, AT with bupivacaine (n = 19): 4.2 ± 2.2, AT with ropivacaine (n = 19): 4.9 ± 2.0, PT with bupivacaine (n = 16): 5.7 ± 1.6, PT with ropivacaine (n = 16): 6.0 ± 1.7. Conclusions: Post-thoracotomy analgesia combining paravertebral catheter and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug is a safe and effective practice, VAS values are acceptable (only 16% of patients required meperidine as rescue). It prevents the risk of side effects related to epidural analgesia. Patients submitted to AT experienced less pain than those with PT (4.5 vs 5.9, p < 0.01). Bupivacaine got slightly better VAS values than ropivacaine (4.9 vs 5.4 p < 0.05). Higher doses and volumes of local anesthetic could be used to obtain better VAS values.

Key Words: Post-thoracotomy pain • Paravertebral block • Paravertebral analgesia

	1. Introduction

Top Abstract 1. Introduction 2. Materials and methods 3. Results 4. Discussion References

 
Pain when experienced after thoracotomy is considered the most intense acute postoperative pain. This can adversely affect coughing and deep breathing, resulting in respiratory complications such as hypoxia, atelectasis, chest infection, and respiratory failure that may delay recovery and, if severe, could be life-threatening. It may also contribute to the development of chronic pain syndrome [1].

Given the fact that systemic opioids are not potent enough to control neurogenic pain without detrimental effects on respiratory outcome [2], epidural analgesia is considered as the gold standard for thoracic analgesia [3].

However thoracic epidural analgesia carries the risk of dural puncture, epidural hematoma, epidural abscess, and side effects such as hypotension, bradycardia, and urinary retention and these commonly occur. Regional anesthesia by thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) could be a good alternative for post-thoracotomy pain [4].

A thoracic paravertebral infusion of a local anesthetic provides effective pain relief with few side effects. This technique also reduces the occurrence of chronic post-thoracotomy neuralgia and stress responses, and preserves pulmonary function [5].

TPVB efficacy depends on adequate catheter placement and on the potency, concentration and volume of the local anesthetic [6].

Bupivacaine has been the most frequently used local anesthetic according to published studies. It is a contrasted potent drug; however it has been reported toxic when limit dosages are overpassed [7].

Ropivacaine is a new local anesthetic that could be a useful alternative to bupivacaine for TPVB. It is considered less cardiotoxic and neurotoxic than bupivacaine at equipotent doses and also less potent than bupivacaine at equal milligram doses. These properties could be important because higher concentrations and volumes of local anesthetics are needed for this technique [8].

We decided to compare these drugs, one with a higher concentration and a lower volume, the other at a lower concentration but with a higher volume.

We conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a multimodal approach for pain treatment after thoracic surgery including a thoracic paravertebral infusion of bolus of bupivacaine 0.5% (10 ml/6 h) vs ropivacaine 0.2% (15 ml/6 h), intercalated with 2 g of endovenous methamizol every 6 h.

	2. Materials and methods

Top Abstract 1. Introduction 2. Materials and methods 3. Results 4. Discussion References

 
Included in this study were patients scheduled for an anterior (AT) or posterolateral (PT) thoracotomy for pulmonary resection during 2006. Written informed consent was obtained in all the cases and the protocol was approved by our institutional ethical committee. The use of visual analog scale (VAS) for pain measurement was explained to those involved in the study.

Patients of every group (AT and PT) were allocated randomly to the analgesic technique (bupivacaine 0.5%, 10 ml/6 h or ropivacaine 0.2%, 15 ml/6 h).

General anesthesia was induced with 1.5–2 mg/kg of propofol, 2 µm/kg of fentanyl, and 0.6 mg/kg of atracurium and maintained with sevoflurane, nitrous oxide, and oxygen. All patients were intubated with a double-lumen endobronchial tube for one-lung ventilation.

An anterior or posterolateral thoracotomy was implemented in the forth (AT) or fifth (PT) intercostal space. One tube for wedge resections and two tubes for lobectomies were placed after resection in the seventh or eighth intercostal space; after pneumonectomy chest tube was removed in the operating room. The same policy of chest tube placement was followed in both groups in order that this would not bias the results of the study. The paravertebral catheter was placed by the surgeon before closing the thoracotomy.

The puncture site was situated 2.5–3 cm laterally to the thoracotomy close to the spinous process and an 18-gauge Tuohy needle was inserted perpendicularly to the skin. The needle entering into the paravertebral space was located visually. A catheter was then inserted 2–3 cm. After careful aspiration through the catheter, an initial bolus of 15 ml of bupivacaine 0.5% or 20 ml of ropivacaine 0.2% was infused.

The total dose, volume and concentration of bupivacaine and ropivacaine were selected regarding previous studies, all of which showed the efficacy of plain bupivacaine and ropivacaine in concentrations ranging from 0.2% to 0.5%, starting with a bolus dose of 15–20 ml followed by bolus of 10 or 15 ml, respectively. In our center, the disposable concentrations of local anesthetics for surgical use are bupivacaine 0.5% and ropivacaine 0.2%.

We employed higher volumes of ropivacaine to compensate for its lower concentration (15 ml/6 h). We avoided higher volumes of anesthetic to prevent complications.

Patients received a bolus of 10 ml of bupivacaine or 15 ml of ropivacaine every 6 h with 2 g of endovenous methamizol intercalated every 6 h and meperidine, a synthetic opioid, as rescue drug (bolus of 50 mg subcutaneous).

Patients’ pain was evaluated with a VAS graded from 0, no pain, to 10, the worst pain imaginable, recorded 1 h after the paravertebral analgesic bolus.

The study period lasted 72 h, and data collection was performed by a third person (the assigned ward nurse) who was not aware of the randomization and wrote the VAS score in the patient Kardex.

The following data were assessed: (1) 1st, 6, 24, 48, 72 h pain scores, (2) any requirement for rescue analgesia (meperidine), and (3) adverse events related to the analgesia technique, respiratory depression (respiratory rate <8 breaths per minute), cardiotoxicity, confusion, sedation, urinary retention, nausea, vomiting, and pruritus. SPSS v13 package (Chicago, IL, US) was used for statistical data analysis. The data samples were split into four data sets attending to each factor. Adjustment of data sets to a normal distribution was always verified for the applicability of parametric statistics (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test). Subsequently the comparison of serial measurements (variables) was performed by ANOVA for repeated measures with Greenhouse–Geisser correction. When normal distribution was not applicable data were analyzed by using non-parametric statistics (Mann–Whitney U test).

	3. Results

Top Abstract 1. Introduction 2. Materials and methods 3. Results 4. Discussion References

 
Seventy-six patients were enrolled initially. Six cases were excluded because extrapleural resection was needed (one patient) or because of the technical impossibility of placing catheter due to removal of paravertebral parietal pleura during the lung resection (three patients) or because of accidental catheter removal (two patients).

No pruritus or periods of excessive somnolence were detected in either of the groups. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications in any of the patients in regard to catheter placement or local anesthetic infusion.

Patient characteristics and operative data were comparable between the groups (Table 1 ). Differences between both local anesthetic and thoracotomy variety can be seen in Tables 2 and 3 .

Per hours there were statistically differences between VAS 1 and 24 h (Table 2).

Initial VAS scores (first hour after bolus) were low in both groups (3.1/3.8) with a peak of pain in 6 and 24 h control (values over 6). VAS pain scores decreased progressively being lower after 72 h (3.4/4.0).

VAS scores in function of the thoracotomy performed (AT or PT) showed lower scores in AT group that were statistically significant mean and per hour (p < 0.01) (Table 3).

Eleven patients (16%) needed meperidine as rescue drug at some moment (six with ropivacaine and five with bupivacaine), there were no differences in the requirements for rescue analgesia between the two groups (p > 0.05).

No complications attributable to postoperative pain (retention of secretions, atelectasis or pneumonia) were recorded. No postoperative bronchoscopies or minitracheotomies were performed.

	4. Discussion

Top Abstract 1. Introduction 2. Materials and methods 3. Results 4. Discussion References

 
Thoracotomy produces severe discomfort with marked respiratory impairment that depends on the quality of pain relief. Appropriate analgesia can reduce this pain-related morbidity [9].

TPVB was described at the beginning of the 20th century. Recently, because of the possibility of inserting a catheter into the thoracic paravertebral space, it has been evaluated for postoperative analgesia after thoracotomy [10].

Thoracic paravertebral space is a vertically and horizontally open space located between the intercostal and epidural space. Local anesthetic injection can diffuse through this space to upper and lower nerve roots. Consequently analgesia achieved using a paravertebral block can span several segments. The intensity of the block will depend on the potency, concentration and volume infused of the local anesthetic [6,11].

The insertion of the thoracic paravertebral catheter has been described by a surgical approach under direct vision as in the current study or by a skin puncture generally performed by the anesthesiologist [12].

Since 2002 in our department (with the agreement of anesthesiology) we have been employing a multimodal treatment of post-thoracotomy pain consisting of a TPVB with bolus of bupivacaine intercalated with methamizol and subcutaneous meperidine as rescue drug.

We have observed in the day-practice an effective control of post-thoracotomy pain with this strategy.

We decided to evaluate our pain management policy comparing the most frequently employed local anesthetic (bupivacaine) with the more recently implanted (ropivacaine) in two groups with different thoracotomy approaches (AT and PT).

It has been shown that at the usual doses of bupivacaine, early threshold plasma levels for central nervous system toxicity are often exceeded and occasional episodes of temporary confusion can arise, probably caused by bupivacaine accumulation [13].

Compared with bupivacaine, ropivacaine produces a greater sensorimotor differential block with the benefit of a shorter elimination half-life, with a possibly lower potential for accumulation. The risk of toxicity with ropivacaine is lower that with bupivacaine, however at equal milligram doses ropivacaine is slightly less potent than bupivacaine in a potency ratio of 1:1.2 [14].

Because of concerns of this potential bupivacaine toxicity, clinicians have turned to propose ropivacaine for TPVB as a safer option [15].

We decided to test both drugs. The concentrations disposable at our center were 0.5% for bupivacaine and 0.2% for ropivacaine.

It is a fact that higher levels of block are obtained increasing concentration of the anesthetic. On the other hand a higher volume of anesthetic is supposed to block more intercostal nerves, compensating a lower concentration [6].

In this study we employed a summed concentration per day of 225 mg of bupivacaine with a volume of 45 ml. Summed ropivacaine per day was 130 mg with a volume of 65 ml. We did not administrate higher volumes than 15 ml/6 h in order to prevent possible complications given the lack of experience in the use of higher volumes of ropivacaine.

Regarding the need for rescue analgesia both anesthetics obtained similar results. However bupivacaine mean VAS values were better than those with ropivacaine (p < 0.05); also after 1 and 24 h (Table 2).

The differences are small but may show the importance of concentration over volume. Concentrations of local anesthetic usually employed in TPVB are low because of the risk of toxicity. Some reports suggest that it may be necessary to use higher concentrations to achieve better VAS scores [16,17]. However there are insufficient studies to determine if these higher concentrations of local anesthetic would provide better pain control without toxicity.

In our series we saw no toxicity related to local anesthetic, and obtained slightly better VAS values in the group with higher concentrations.

It is important to remark that, different from an epidural block, paravertebral block with a local anesthetic is not a direct nerve root block. In this technique the nerves are blocked by diffusion through the paravertebral space. Therefore higher concentrations and volumes should be needed.

Theoretically the day dose in bolus of bupivacaine for TPVB (the more toxic of local anesthetics employed) cannot exceed 400 mg [18]. Our patients received a total dose per day of 225 mg of bupivacaine.

On these bases and according to our results we believe that under strict control, higher concentrations and volumes of local anesthetics could be given to improve post-thoracotomy pain. Further studies employing higher doses and concentrations should be performed.

In our results, first hour values were significantly lower (3.1/3.8) in comparison to post-6 h values (6.9/7.1), when the peak of pain was seen. Other authors have showed the peak of pain precisely in the first hour post-thoracotomy [19]. This could be explained because of the accumulation of residual anesthetics given during the surgery. Most of the procedures were lung resections that required high dosages of intraoperative anesthetics that are not completely eliminated in the first postoperative hour.

Besides, opioid receptors are partially impregnated for several hours after surgery. The pain peak 6 h after surgery could be explained because at that time there are no opioids in blood. Local anesthetic is infused from 0 analgesia. The rest of the values followed a decrease with both anesthetics from the 6 h peak (second dose of local anesthetic). The lowest scores were collected in the 72 h control.

Regarding the literature, TPVB is mainly performed by continuous infusion of the anesthetic [20]. In our management we employed bolus. We believe that this facilitates postoperative management of the patients. In our department we only send post-pneumonectomy patients to intensive care units (ICU) for 24 h. The rest are managed in the ward. And an important part of the feasibility of this policy is the multimodal pain approach.

Nurses in the ward subministrate all the drugs, the bolus of local anesthetic every 6 h intercalated with 2 ml of methamizol, and rescue subcutaneous meperidine if needed. Volumes and concentrations of local anesthetic obtained are similar and toxicity is rare.

We believe that TPVB bolus facilitates postoperative care and monitoring is simplified. Consequently this policy could be more suitably adapted to patients in surgical wards avoiding highly monitored ICU.

Analyzing our data regarding the type of thoracotomy it is remarkable the difference in mean VAS values between AT and PT (Table 3) with a strong statistically significance (p < 0.01) in the mean and all the postoperative hours.

In conclusion, our patients received satisfactory analgesia, as assessed by pain scores. Bupivacaine got better VAS scores (p < 0.05) in mean and after first and 24 h, however the two groups had no difference in the requirement for rescue analgesia. AT showed to be a less painful incision in comparison to PT with statistically significant values both with bupivacaine and ropivacaine (p < 0.01).

No toxicity was observed. Higher concentrations and volumes of local anesthetics could be used to obtain better VAS scores.

Paravertebral catheter placement done by the surgeon ensures the exact location of the infusion of the local anesthetic (visual check).

The multimodal treatment including the TPVB alternated with endovenous methamizol and subcutaneous meperidine as rescue, during the first 72 h (the most painful postoperative period) provides effective analgesia after thoracic surgery.

This management could be considered an alternative to thoracic epidural analgesia.

	Footnotes

 
Presented at the 15th European Conference on General Thoracic Surgery, Leuven, Belgium, June 3–6, 2007.

	References

Top Abstract 1. Introduction 2. Materials and methods 3. Results 4. Discussion References

 

1. Kavanagh BP, Katz J, Sandler AN. Pain control after thoracic surgery. Anesthesiology 1994;81:737-759.[Medline]
2. Dickenson AH. Spinal cord pharmacology of pain. Br J Anaesth 1995;75:193-200.[Free Full Text]
3. Soto RG, Fu ES. Acute pain management for patients undergoing thoracotomy. Ann Thorac Surg 2003;75:1349-1357.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Kaiser AM, Zollinger A, De Lorenzi D, Largiader F, Weder W. Prospective, randomized comparison of extrapleural versus epidural analgesia for postthoracotomy pain. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66:367-372.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Richardson J, Sabanathan S. Thoracic paravertebral analgesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1995;39:1005-1015.[Medline]
6. Karmakar MK. Thoracic paravertebral block. Anesthesiology 2001;95:771-780.[CrossRef][Medline]
7. Knudsen K, Beckman Suurkula M, Blomberg S, Sjovall J, Edvardsson N. Central nervous and cardiovascular effects of IV infusions of ropivacaine, bupivacaine and placebo in volunteers. Br J Anaesth 1997;78:507-514.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Morrison LM, Emanuelsson BM, McClure JH, Pollock AJ, McKeown DW, Brockway M, Jozwiak H, Wildsmith JA. Efficacy and kinetics of extradural ropivacaine: comparison with bupivacaine. Br J Anaesth 1994;72:164-169.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Richardson J, Sabanathan S, Mearns AJ, Evans CS, Bembridge J, Fairbrass M. Efficacy of pre-emptive analgesia and continuous extrapleural intercostal nerve block on postthoracotomy pain and pulmonary mechanics. J Cardio-Vasc Surg 1994;35:219-228.[Medline]
10. Renck H. Time for revivification of paravertebral blocks?. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1995;39:1003-1004.[Medline]
11. Eng J, Sabanathan S. Site of action of continuous extrapleural intercostal nerve block. Ann Thorac Surg 1991;51:387-389.[Abstract]
12. Carabine UA, Gilliland H, Johnston JR, McGuigan J. Pain relief for thoracotomy. Comparison of morphine requirements using an extrapleural infusion of bupivacaine. Reg Anesth 1995;20:412-417.[Medline]
13. Richardson J, Sabanathan S, Jones J, Shah RD, Cheema S, Mearns AJ. A prospective, randomized comparison of preoperative and continuous balanced epidural or paravertebral bupivacaine on post-thoracotomy pain, pulmonary function and stress responses. Br J Anaesth 1999;83:387-392.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Macias A, Monedero P, Adame M, Torre W, Fidalgo I, Hidalgo F. A randomized, double-blinded comparison of thoracic epidural ropivacaine, ropivacaine/fentanyl, or bupivacaine/fentanyl for postthoracotomy analgesia. Anesth Analg 2002;95:1344-1350.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. McClellan KJ, Faulds D. Ropivacaine: an update of its use in regional anaesthesia. Drugs 2000;60:1065-1093.[CrossRef][Medline]
16. Berrisford RG, Sabanathan S, Mearns AJ, Clarke BJ, Hamdi A. Plasma concentrations of bupivacaine and its enantiomers during continuous extrapleural intercostal nerve block. Br J Anaesth 1993;70:201-204.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Garcia Navlet M, Garutti I, Olmedilla L, Perez-Peña JM, San Joaquin MT, Martinez-Ragues G, Gomez-Caro L. Paravertebral ropivacaine 0.3% and bupivacaine 0.25% provide similar pain relief after thoracotomy. J Cardiothor Vasc Anesth 2006;20(5):644-647.[CrossRef][Medline]
18. Tucker GT, Mather LE. Clinical pharmacokinetics of local anaesthetics. Clin Pharmacokinet 1979;4(4):241-278.[Medline]
19. Marret E, Bazelly B, Taylor G, Lembert N, Deleuze A, Mazoit J, Bonnet F. Paravertebral block with ropivacaine 0.5% versus systemic analgesia for pain relief after thoracotomy. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;79:2109-2114.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. Ballantyne JC, Carr DB, De Ferranti S, Suarez T, Lau J, Chalmers TC, Angelillo IF, Mosteller F. The comparative effects of postoperative analgesic therapies on pulmonary outcome: cumulative meta-analyses of randomized, controlled trials. Anesth Analg 1998;86:598-612.[Abstract]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Gulbahar, B. Kocer, S. N. Muratli, E. Yildirim, O. Gulbahar, K. Dural, and U. Sakinci A comparison of epidural and paravertebral catheterisation techniques in post-thoracotomy pain management Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., February 1, 2010; 37(2): 467 - 472. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J. Fibla, L. Molins, J. M. Mier, A. Sierra, and G. Vidal A prospective study of analgesic quality after a thoracotomy: paravertebral block with ropivacaine before and after rib spreading Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., November 1, 2009; 36(5): 901 - 905. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Kotze, A. Scally, and S. Howell Efficacy and safety of different techniques of paravertebral block for analgesia after thoracotomy: a systematic review and metaregression Br. J. Anaesth., November 1, 2009; 103(5): 626 - 636. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Juan J. Fibla Laureano Molins Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Fibla, J. J. Articles by Vidal, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Fibla, J. J. Articles by Vidal, G. Related Collections Anesthesia Lung - cancer Lung - other