UNASSIGNED: Recent studies have shown that dexmedetomidine can be safely used in peripheral nerve blocks and spinal anesthesia. Epidural administration of dexmedetomidine produces analgesia and sedation, prolongs motor and sensory block time, extends postoperative analgesia, and reduces the need for rescue analgesia. This investigation seeks to identify the median effective concentration (EC50) of ropivacaine for epidural motor blockade, and assess how incorporating varying doses of dexmedetomidine impacts this EC50 value.
UNASSIGNED: Prospective, double-blind, up-down sequential allocation study.
UNASSIGNED: Operating room, post-anesthesia care unit, and general ward.
UNASSIGNED: One hundred and fifty patients were allocated into five groups in a randomized, double-blinded manner as follows: NR (normal saline combined with ropivacaine) group, RD0.25 (0.25 μg/kg dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine) group, RD0.5 (0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine) group, RD0.75 (0.75 μg/kg dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine) group, RD1.0 (1.0 μg/kg dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine) group. The concentration of epidural ropivacaine for the first patient in each group was 0.5%. Following administration, the patients were immediately placed in a supine position for observation, and the lower limb motor block was assessed every 5 min using the modified Bromage score within 30 min after drug administration. According to the sequential method, the concentration of ropivacaine in the next patient was adjusted according to the reaction of the previous patient: effective motor block was defined as the modified Bromage score > 0 within 30 min after epidural administration. If the modified Bromage score of the previous patient was >0 within 30 min after drug administration, the concentration of ropivacaine in the next patient was decreased by 1 gradient. Conversely, if the score did not exceed 0, the concentration of ropivacaine in the next patient was increased by 1 gradient. The up-down sequential allocation method and probit regression were used to calculate the EC50 of epidural ropivacaine.
UNASSIGNED: Adverse events, hemodynamic changes, demographic data and clinical characteristics.
UNASSIGNED: The EC50 of epidural ropivacaine required to achieve motor block was 0.677% (95% CI, 0.622-0.743%) in the NR group, 0.624% (95% CI, 0.550-0.728%) in the RD0.25 group, 0.549% (95% CI, 0.456-0.660%) in the RD0.5 group, 0.463% (95% CI, 0.408-0.527%) in the RD0.75 group, and 0.435% (95% CI, 0.390-0.447%) in the RD1.0 group. The EC50 of the NR group and the RD0.25 group were significantly higher than that of the RD0.75 and the RD1.0 groups, and the EC50 of the RD0.5 group was significantly higher than that of the RD1.0 group.
UNASSIGNED: The EC50 of epidural ropivacaine required to achieve motor block was 0.677% in the NR group, 0.624% in the RD0.25 group, 0.549% in the RD0.5 group, 0.463% in the RD0.75 group, and 0.435% in the RD1.0 group. Dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant for ropivacaine dose-dependently reduce the EC50 of epidural ropivacaine for motor block and shorten the onset time of epidural ropivacaine block. The optimal dose of dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine for epidural anesthesia was 0.5 μg/kg.

BACKGROUND: 3% chloroprocaine (CP) has been reported as the common local anesthetic used in pregnant women undergoing urgent cesarean delivery during labor analgesia period. However, 0.75% ropivacaine is considered a promising and effective alternative. Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness and safety of 0.75% ropivacaine with 3% chloroprocaine for extended epidural anesthesia in pregnant women.
METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, controlled, single-center study from November 1, 2022, to April 30, 2023. We selected forty-five pregnant women undergoing urgent cesarean delivery during labor analgesia period and randomized them to receive either 0.75% ropivacaine or 3% chloroprocaine in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was the time to loss of cold sensation at the T4 level.
RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the two groups in the time to achieve loss of cold sensation (303, 95%CI 255 to 402 S vs. 372, 95%CI 297 to 630 S, p = 0.024). There was no significant difference the degree of motor block (p = 0.185) at the Th4 level. Fewer pregnant women required additional local anesthetics in the ropivacaine group compared to the chloroprocaine group (4.5% VS. 34.8%, p = 0.011). The ropivacaine group had lower intraoperative VAS scores (p = 0.023) and higher patient satisfaction scores (p = 0.040) than the chloroprocaine group. The incidence of intraoperative complications was similar between the two groups, and no serious complications were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that 0.75% ropivacaine was associated with less intraoperative pain treatment, higher patient satisfaction and reduced the onset time compared to 3% chloroprocaine in pregnant women undergoing urgent cesarean delivery during labor analgesia period. Therefore, 0.75% ropivacaine may be a suitable drug in pregnant women undergoing urgent cesarean delivery during labor analgesia period.
BACKGROUND: The registration number: ChiCTR2200065201; http://www.chictr.org.cn , Principal investigator: MEN, Date of registration: 31/10/2022.

Caudal epidural blockade is one of the most frequently administered regional anesthesia techniques in children. It is a supplement during general anesthesia and for providing postoperative analgesia in pediatrics for sub-umbilical surgeries, especially for genitourinary surgeries. However, the duration of the analgesic effect is occasionally unsatisfactory. In this review, we discuss the main advantages and disadvantages of different techniques to prolong postoperative analgesia for single-injection caudal blockade in children. A literature search of the keywords \"caudal\", \"analgesia\", \"pediatric\", and \"children\" was performed using PubMed and Web of Science databases. We highlight that analgesic quality correlates substantially with the local anesthetic\'s type, dose, the timing relationship between caudal block and surgery, caudal catheterization, and administration of epidural opioids or other adjuvant drugs.

UNASSIGNED: High altitudes are characterized by low-pressure oxygen deprivation. This is further exacerbated with increasing altitude. High altitudes can be associated with reduced oxygenation, which in turn, can affect labor, as well as maternal and fetal outcomes. Epidural anesthesia can significantly relieve labor pain. This study aimed to assess the effects of elevation gradient changes at high altitude on the analgesic effect of epidural anesthesia, labor duration, and neonatal outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: We divided 211 women who received epidural anesthesia into groups according to varying elevation of their residence (76 in Xining City, mean altitude 2,200 m; 63 in Haibei Prefecture, mean altitude 3,655 m; and 72 in Yushu Prefecture, mean altitude 4,493 m). The analgesic effect was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS). Labor duration was objectively recorded. The neonatal outcome was assessed using Apgar scores and fetal umbilical artery blood pH.
UNASSIGNED: VAS scores among the three groups did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). The neonatal Apgar scores in descending order were: Xining group > Haibei group > Yushu group (p < 0.05). The stage of labor was similar among the three groups (p > 0.05). Fetal umbilical artery blood pH in descending order were: Xining group > Haibei group > Yushu group (p < 0.05).
UNASSIGNED: Elevation gradient changes in highland areas did not affect the efficacy of epidural anesthesia or labor duration. However, neonatal outcomes were affected.

UNASSIGNED: Epidural nonopioid adjuvants also reduce local anesthetic use. We aimed to test the hypothesis that, compared with the present standard fentanyl, the hourly consumption of local anesthetic was at least as good when dexmedetomidine or esketamine was combined with local anesthetic for patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA).
UNASSIGNED: A total of 120 laboring nulliparous subjects requiring labor analgesia were recruited for the final statistical analysis. Subjects were randomized to receive 0.075 % ropivacaine added with one of three equivalent adjuvants: 0.4 μg/mL fentanyl, 0.4 μg/mL dexmedetomidine, or 1.0 mg/mL esketamine. The primary outcome was hourly ropivacaine consumption. Compared with the fentanyl group, a 20 % difference in hourly local anesthetic consumption between the dexmedetomidine and esketamine groups was considered a clinical difference (non-inferiority margin).
UNASSIGNED: The hourly ropivacaine consumption of the fentanyl group was 12.4 (95 % confidence interval CI 11.2 to 13.6) ml/h, so the prespecified non-inferiority limit was 2.5 ml/h. The hourly ropivacaine consumption of the fentanyl group was not inferior to that of the dexmedetomidine group (12.4 ml/h vs. 11.9 ml/h, risk difference, 0.5; 95 % confidence interval CI, -1.0 to 2.0, meeting criteria for non-inferiority). However, the hourly ropivacaine consumption of the esketamine group was 14.3 ml/h, and that of the fentanyl group was 12.4 ml/h (risk difference, 1.9, 95 % CI, 0.2 to 3.6), failing to confirm non-inferiority with a non-inferiority margin of 20 %. The incidence of pruritus was highest in the fentanyl group, whereas the occurrence of mild dizziness was highest in the esketamine group.
UNASSIGNED: In setting of the conditions of this study, epidural dexmedetomidine was non-inferior compared with epidural fentanyl in combination with ropivacaine for PCEA during labor. Meanwhile, we failed to establish the non-inferiority of epidural esketamine compared with epidural fentanyl in combination with ropivacaine for labor analgesia.

Background: Previous studies have explored the median effective concentration (EC50) of ropivacaine for labor epidural analgesia in parturients with obesity. However, the clinical relevance of the 90% effective concentration (EC90) remains unclear. This study aimed to determine and compare the dose-response curve of epidural ropivacaine for labor analgesia between parturients with and without obesity. Methods: Parturients were divided into two groups based on body mass index (BMI): group N, consisting of parturients with BMI <30 kg/m2, and group O, consisting of parturients with BMI >30 kg/m2. Within each group, the patients were randomized to receive one of five concentrations (0.0375%, 0.075%, 0.1125%, 0.15%, or 0.1875%) of epidural ropivacaine for labor analgesia. Analgesia was induced with a loading dose of 15 mL of the assigned concentration. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were recorded at baseline and 30 min post-dose to calculate the response (%) using the formula [(baseline VAS pain score-VAS pain score at 30 min)/baseline VAS pain score] ×100%. The EC50 and EC90 values were determined via nonlinear regression analysis. Results: The EC50 and EC90 values of ropivacaine were 0.061% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.056%-0.066%) and 0.177% (95% CI, 0.152%-0.206%) in group N and 0.056% (95% CI, 0.051%-0.061%) and 0.161% (95% CI, 0.138%-0.187%) in group O, respectively. No significant differences were observed in the EC50 and EC90 values between the two groups (p-values = 0.121 and 0.351, respectively. Conclusion: In conclusion, within the parameters of this study, our findings suggest that obesity, characterized by a mean BMI value of 30.9, does not significantly influence the EC50 and EC90 values of epidural ropivacaine for labor analgesia. Further investigations are warranted to elucidate the dose-response relationship between ropivacaine and obesity with higher BMI values. Clinical trial registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=190747, Identifier ChiCTR2300073273.

UNASSIGNED: It is still no consensus on the use of ropivacaine or bupivacaine in epidural anesthesia for cesarean section (CS), because their anesthetic potency and relative complications remains controversial. This system review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of epidural ropivacaine and bupivacaine for elective CSs and investigate relative complications for parturients and neonates.
UNASSIGNED: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Science-Direct, and Google Scholar to June 30, 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which compared epidural ropivacaine with bupivacaine for elective CSs. The success rate of epidural anesthesia (EA) was primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included onset times of sensory block, maternal side effects, neonatal Apgar scores and umbilical artery pH.
UNASSIGNED: We analyzed 8 RCTs with 532 parturients. 0.75% ropivacaine is associated with a shorter onset time of sensory block than 0.5% bupivacaine (SMD = -0.43, 95% CI: -0.70 to -0.17; p = .001). 0.5% ropivacaine resulted in a reduced nausea than 0.5% bupivacaine (RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.83; p = .008). In addition, there were no significant difference between ropivacaine and bupivacaine groups in terms of success rate of epidural anesthesia, maternal side effects (hypotension, bradycardia, shivering), and neonatal Apgar scores and umbilical artery pH.
UNASSIGNED: The findings suggest that there were no significant difference between epidural ropivacaine and bupivacaine for elective CSs in terms of the success rate (85.9% vs. 83.5), maternal side effects (hypotension, bradycardia, shivering), and neonatal Apgar scores and umbilical artery pH. But compared with 0.5% bupivacaine, epidural 0.75% ropivacaine was mildly effective for reducing onset time of sensory block and 0.5% ropivacaine reduced the incidence of maternal nausea.

UNASSIGNED: Postoperative analgesia is an essential component of enhanced recovery after surgery following abdominal surgery. Studies comparing the effectiveness of epidural analgesia with that of other analgesic modalities after liver surgery have reported inconsistent results. Consequently, the use of epidural analgesia for open hepatectomy is controversial.
UNASSIGNED: The present single-center retrospective study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) in adults undergoing open hepatectomy.
UNASSIGNED: Patients who underwent open hepatectomy between January 2018 to December 2019 at Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to adjust baseline information between the PCEA and PCIA groups. The primary outcome measure was scores of the numeric rating scales (NRSs) for resting, exercise, and nocturnal pain at postoperative 24 h (postoperative day 1 [POD1]) and 48 h (POD2). The secondary outcome indicators included postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), hypotension, pruritus, respiratory depression, functional activity score (FAS), effective analgesic pump compression ratio, analgesic relief rate, discontinuation of the analgesic pump, reasons for discontinuation of the analgesic pump, and patient satisfaction with postoperative analgesia.
UNASSIGNED: The NRS scores of the PCEA group on POD1 were significantly lower than those of the PCIA group (P < 0.05). On POD2, the difference between the two groups was significant only for motion NRS scores (P < 0.05). The PCIA group had significantly more patients with lower FAS functional class than the PCEA group (P < 0.001). The effective analgesic pump compression ratio and the analgesic relief rate at 2 days after the surgery were lower in the PCEA group than in the PCIA group (P < 0.001). The incidence of pump discontinuation was higher in the PCEA group than in the PCIA group on POD2 (P = 0.044). Moreover, on POD1 and POD2, the PCEA group showed a higher incidence of pruritus and hypotension than the PCIA group (P < 0.001). Both groups showed no significant difference in PONV incidence.
UNASSIGNED: In patients undergoing open hepatectomy, PCEA was more effective than PCIA in relieving moderate to severe pain on POD1. However, improving the safety and effectiveness of PCEA remains a challenge.

暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: Dural mater is punctured by using a spinal needle without drugs administrated into intrathecal space directly in dural puncture epidural (DPE) analgesia.
UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to summarize the evidence of benefits and risks of DPE analgesia with 25-G spinal needles for labor pain relief.
UNASSIGNED: DPE analgesia with EP analgesia for labor pain relief were systematically searched. The Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and Web of Science databases were systematically searched till 6th November 2022 to find out randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DPE (using 25-G spinal needles) with conventional epidural (EP) analgesia. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool. Risk ratio, mean difference, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
UNASSIGNED: Seven RCTs with 761 parturients were identified. Pool data showed that DPE technique was associated with shorter time to pain score ⩽ 3/10, higher percentage with pain score ⩽ 3/10 at 10 min and 20 min, lower incidence of epidural top-up bolus and no S2 block, higher incidence of bilateral S2 blockade at 10 min and during labor, lower incidence of epidural top-up bolus and incidence of asymmetric block. No statistical difference in side effect and parturient satisfaction between DPE and EP technique.
UNASSIGNED: DPE technique with 25-G spinal needles was associated with faster analgesia onset and sacral coverage, greater sacral spread, lesser requirement of epidural top-up and lower incidence of asymmetric block. DPE technique with 25-G spinal needles showed a greater benefit to parturients.