We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
The efficacy of automated intermittent boluses for continuous femoral nerve block: a prospective, randomized comparison to continuous infusions.
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 2013 June
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an automated intermittent bolus technique provides enhanced analgesia compared with a continuous infusion for femoral nerve block.
DESIGN: Prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01226927).
SETTING: Perioperative areas and orthopedic surgical ward of a university hospital.
PATIENTS: 45 ASA physical status 1, 2, and 3 patients undergoing unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty.
INTERVENTIONS: All patients received single-injection sciatic and femoral nerve blocks plus femoral nerve catheter placement for postoperative analgesia. Patients were randomly assigned to an automated intermittent bolus (5 mL every 30 min with 0.1 mL/hr basal rate) or a continuous infusion (10.1 mL/hr) delivery method of 0.2% ropivacaine.
MEASUREMENTS: Consumption of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores were assessed postoperatively at set intervals until the morning of postoperative day (POD) 2.
MAIN RESULTS: The mean (SEM) cumulative IV-PCA dose (mg of hydromorphone) for the 36-hour postoperative interval measured was 12.9 ± 2.32 in the continuous infusion rate group (n = 20) and 7.8 ± 1.02 in the intermittent bolus group [n = 21, t(39) = 2.04, P = 0.048; a 39 ± 14% difference in total usage]. Pain scores were statistically significantly lower in the intermittent bolus group in the afternoon of POD 1 (t(39) = 2.47, P = 0.018), but were otherwise similar.
CONCLUSIONS: An automated intermittent bolus infusion technique for femoral nerve catheters is associated with clinically and statistically significantly less IV-PCA use (ie, an opioid-sparing effect) than a continuous infusion technique.
DESIGN: Prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01226927).
SETTING: Perioperative areas and orthopedic surgical ward of a university hospital.
PATIENTS: 45 ASA physical status 1, 2, and 3 patients undergoing unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty.
INTERVENTIONS: All patients received single-injection sciatic and femoral nerve blocks plus femoral nerve catheter placement for postoperative analgesia. Patients were randomly assigned to an automated intermittent bolus (5 mL every 30 min with 0.1 mL/hr basal rate) or a continuous infusion (10.1 mL/hr) delivery method of 0.2% ropivacaine.
MEASUREMENTS: Consumption of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores were assessed postoperatively at set intervals until the morning of postoperative day (POD) 2.
MAIN RESULTS: The mean (SEM) cumulative IV-PCA dose (mg of hydromorphone) for the 36-hour postoperative interval measured was 12.9 ± 2.32 in the continuous infusion rate group (n = 20) and 7.8 ± 1.02 in the intermittent bolus group [n = 21, t(39) = 2.04, P = 0.048; a 39 ± 14% difference in total usage]. Pain scores were statistically significantly lower in the intermittent bolus group in the afternoon of POD 1 (t(39) = 2.47, P = 0.018), but were otherwise similar.
CONCLUSIONS: An automated intermittent bolus infusion technique for femoral nerve catheters is associated with clinically and statistically significantly less IV-PCA use (ie, an opioid-sparing effect) than a continuous infusion technique.
Full text links
Related Resources
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
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