Back to Journals » Local and Regional Anesthesia » Volume 8

Lidocaine versus ropivacaine for postoperative continuous paravertebral nerve blocks in patients undergoing laparoscopic bowel surgery: a randomized, controlled, double- blinded, pilot study

Authors Ghisi D, Fanelli A, Jouguelet-Lacoste J, La Colla L, Auroux A, Chelly J

Received 12 March 2015

Accepted for publication 20 April 2015

Published 14 September 2015 Volume 2015:8 Pages 71—77

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/LRA.S84476

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 4

Editor who approved publication: Dr Stefan Wirz


Daniela Ghisi,1,3 Andrea Fanelli,1,2 Julie Jouguelet-Lacoste,1 Luca La Colla,1,4 Anne-Sophie Auroux,1,5 Jacques E Chelly1

1Department of Anesthesiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; 2Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy; 3Department of Anesthesia and Postoperative Intensive Care, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy; 4Department of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, Università degli Studi di Parma, Parma, Italy 5Institut des Sciences Pharmaceutiques et Biologiques-Faculté de Pharmacie de Lyon Université Claude Bernard Lyon, France

Background and objectives: Lidocaine could provide many advantages in continuous regional anesthesia techniques, including faster onset, greater titratability, and lower cost than long-acting local anesthetics. This prospective, randomized, double-blinded, pilot study is therefore intended to compare lidocaine to ropivacaine in bilateral continuous paravertebral blocks using a multimodal approach for postoperative pain management following laparoscopic bowel surgery.
Methods: Thirty-five ASA I–III consecutive patients undergoing elective laparoscopic bowel surgery and bilateral thoracic paravertebral continuous blocks were analyzed: bilateral thoracic paravertebral infusions of ropivacaine 0.2% (Group Ropi, n=18) or lidocaine 0.25% (Group Lido, n=17) were started at 7 mL/h in the postanesthesia care unit. For each patient, we collected numerical rating scores (NRS) for pain at rest and during movement at baseline, at postanesthesia care unit discharge, at 24 hours and 48 hours after the end of surgery, as well as hydromorphone patient-controlled analgesia requirements, local anesthetic consumption, side effects, postoperative complications, and functional outcomes.
Results: No effect of group distribution on NRS scores for pain at rest or at movement (P=0.823 and P=0.146), nor on hydromorphone (P=0.635) or local anesthetic consumption (P=0.063) was demonstrated at any analyzed time point. Hospital length of stay and spontaneous ambulation were comparable between groups (P=0.636 and P=0.148). In the context of a multimodal approach, the two drugs showed comparable safety profiles.
Discussion: Lidocaine 0.25% and ropivacaine 0.2% provided similar analgesic profiles after elective abdominal surgeries, without any difference in terms of functional outcomes. The easier titratability of lidocaine together with its lower cost induced our clinical practice to definitely switch from ropivacaine to lidocaine for postoperative bilateral paravertebral continuous infusions.

Keywords: laparoscopic bowel surgery, lidocaine, ropivacaine, continuous paravertebral nerve blocks, pilot study

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]