Continuous ropivacaine wound infiltration versus epidural morphine after unplanned caesarean delivery: A noninferiority randomised controlled study.

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Marine Bruillot, Audrey Pieper, Dimitri Sourd, Ana Roge, Edith Ramain, Samia Salah, Jean-Luc Bosson, Jean-Francois Payen
{"title":"Continuous ropivacaine wound infiltration versus epidural morphine after unplanned caesarean delivery: A noninferiority randomised controlled study.","authors":"Marine Bruillot, Audrey Pieper, Dimitri Sourd, Ana Roge, Edith Ramain, Samia Salah, Jean-Luc Bosson, Jean-Francois Payen","doi":"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Treatment programs designed to enhance recovery after caesarean delivery include multimodal analgesia to ensure optimal analgesia while reducing exposure to systemic opioids. Evidence for the effectiveness of continuous wound infiltration with local anaesthetic after unplanned caesarean delivery is needed.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether continuous ropivacaine wound infiltration has noninferior analgesic properties compared to epidural morphine, while reducing side effects related to opioids.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Triple-blinded, noninferiority, randomised controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>One university hospital, between February 2015 and August 2021.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Eighty-one women undergoing unplanned lower segment caesarean section under epidural anaesthesia.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>At the end of the procedure, randomly assigned patients received either an epidural bolus of 0.9% saline with 48 h continuous ropivacaine wound infusion (ropivacaine group) or an epidural bolus of morphine with 48 h 0.9% saline wound infusion (morphine group).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Pain during mobilisation at 24 h postsurgery was assessed using the visual analogue pain scale (VAS 0 to 10) with no indication of the allocated group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pain scores were 4.4 (95% CI, 3.6 to 5.1) in the ropivacaine group versus 3.1 (95% CI, 2.4 to 3.9) in the morphine group. The mean VAS pain difference between the two groups was 1.2 (95% CI, 0.2 to 2.3), which exceeded the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1. The differences between the two groups at rest and during mobilisation at 6 and 24 h were statistically significant. The ropivacaine group received rescue morphine more frequently, and were less satisfied despite fewer morphine-related side effects. Continuous wound infiltration was not technically feasible in 18% of the patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We failed to show that continuous ropivacaine wound infiltration was noninferior to epidural morphine in providing analgesia after unplanned caesarean delivery. Because of a significant rate of technical failures, continuous wound infiltration should only be considered when neuraxial morphine is contraindicated.</p>","PeriodicalId":11920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002135","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Treatment programs designed to enhance recovery after caesarean delivery include multimodal analgesia to ensure optimal analgesia while reducing exposure to systemic opioids. Evidence for the effectiveness of continuous wound infiltration with local anaesthetic after unplanned caesarean delivery is needed.

Objective: To determine whether continuous ropivacaine wound infiltration has noninferior analgesic properties compared to epidural morphine, while reducing side effects related to opioids.

Design: Triple-blinded, noninferiority, randomised controlled trial.

Setting: One university hospital, between February 2015 and August 2021.

Patients: Eighty-one women undergoing unplanned lower segment caesarean section under epidural anaesthesia.

Intervention: At the end of the procedure, randomly assigned patients received either an epidural bolus of 0.9% saline with 48 h continuous ropivacaine wound infusion (ropivacaine group) or an epidural bolus of morphine with 48 h 0.9% saline wound infusion (morphine group).

Main outcome measures: Pain during mobilisation at 24 h postsurgery was assessed using the visual analogue pain scale (VAS 0 to 10) with no indication of the allocated group.

Results: Pain scores were 4.4 (95% CI, 3.6 to 5.1) in the ropivacaine group versus 3.1 (95% CI, 2.4 to 3.9) in the morphine group. The mean VAS pain difference between the two groups was 1.2 (95% CI, 0.2 to 2.3), which exceeded the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1. The differences between the two groups at rest and during mobilisation at 6 and 24 h were statistically significant. The ropivacaine group received rescue morphine more frequently, and were less satisfied despite fewer morphine-related side effects. Continuous wound infiltration was not technically feasible in 18% of the patients.

Conclusions: We failed to show that continuous ropivacaine wound infiltration was noninferior to epidural morphine in providing analgesia after unplanned caesarean delivery. Because of a significant rate of technical failures, continuous wound infiltration should only be considered when neuraxial morphine is contraindicated.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
351
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA) publishes original work of high scientific quality in the field of anaesthesiology, pain, emergency medicine and intensive care. Preference is given to experimental work or clinical observation in man, and to laboratory work of clinical relevance. The journal also publishes commissioned reviews by an authority, editorials, invited commentaries, special articles, pro and con debates, and short reports (correspondences, case reports, short reports of clinical studies).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信