JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Ropivacaine 0.1% versus 0.2% for continuous lumbar plexus nerve block infusions following total hip arthroplasty: a randomized, double blinded study.

Pain Medicine 2014 March
OBJECTIVE: Continuous lumbar plexus blocks provide excellent analgesia for total hip arthroplasty (THA), but their utility has been questioned as they may increase motor weakness. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two different concentrations of ropivacaine on both postoperative analgesia and motor function.

METHODS: Thirty patients were examined in this prospective, single center, double-blinded, parallel group, comparative, randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing primary THA. Lumbar plexus catheters were inserted preoperatively. After surgery, patients were randomly assigned to receive an infusion of ropivacaine at a concentration of either 0.1% (group 0.1%) or 0.2% (group 0.2%) at a standardized volume of 7 mL per hour for 24 hours. Patients were also given free access to patient-controlled analgesia hydromorphone for 24 hours, supplemental intravenous (IV) opiates, and boluses of their assigned local anesthetic concentration via the lumbar plexus catheter. The primary endpoint was total hydromorphone consumption in 24 hours. Secondary endpoints included pain scores, sensory and motor function, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS: There was no significant difference in hydromorphone consumption in the first 24 hours postoperatively (mean [95% confidence interval]) between group 0.1% (8.02 mg [6.02-10.02]) and group 0.2% (8.21 mg [5.75-10.69], P = 0.90). The volume of local anesthetic received, pain scores, sensory and motor function, and patient satisfaction did not vary between groups.

CONCLUSIONS: Following primary THA, lumbar plexus perineural infusion of 0.1% ropivacaine provided similar benefits for postoperative analgesia and functional recovery as 0.2% ropivacaine.

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