Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

A prospective, randomized, double-blinded comparison between multimodal thoracic paravertebral bupivacaine and levobupivacaine analgesia in patients undergoing lung surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of paravertebral analgesia with levobupivacaine or bupivacaine on intra- and postoperative pain for thoracic surgery.

DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, and double-blinded study.

SETTING: A university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS: Forty patients undergoing thoracic surgery.

INTERVENTIONS: Patients received paravertebral catheterization and a bolus (14-20 mL) of 0.5% bupivacaine (n = 20) or 0.5% levobupivacaine (n = 20) with morphine, 60 μg/kg, before the induction of general anesthesia that consisted of a propofol infusion. A paravertebral continuous infusion (0.05 mL/kg/h) of 0.25% bupivacaine or 0.25% levobupivacaine, 100 mL, with added morphine, 10 mg, and clonidine, 0.15 mg, was started at the end of surgery for 72 hours postoperatively. Postoperative rescue diclofenac analgesia was available if required.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was intraoperative fentanyl consumption. Static and dynamic pain scores measured by a visual analog scale were assessed regularly. Intraoperative fentanyl consumption was significantly lower in the levobupivacaine group compared with the bupivacaine group (p = 0.001). On all 3 postoperative days, static pain scores were significantly lower in the levobupivacaine group compared with the bupivacaine group (p < 0.05). Dynamic pain scores were significantly lower in the levobupivacaine group compared with the bupivacaine group during the 2 postoperative days (p < 0.05). A smaller proportion of patients in the levobupivacaine group used rescue analgesia (p < 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS: Paravertebral analgesia with levobupivacaine resulted in less intraoperative fentanyl consumption, lower static (3 days) and dynamic (2 days) pain scores, and less rescue analgesia than analgesia with bupivacaine.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app