Dataset Information

The minimum effective concentration (MEC90) of ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided caudal block in anorectal surgery. A dose finding study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Caudal epidural block (CEB) provides reliable anesthesia for adults undergoing anorectal surgery. Despite the widely utilization, the minimum effective concentration for 90% patients (MEC90) of ropivacaine for CEB remains unknown.

Objective

To estimate MEC of ropivacaine for CEB in anorectal surgery.

Design

A prospective dose-finding study using biased coin design up-and-down sequential method.

Setting

Operating room and postoperative recovery area of Chengdu Shangjin Nanfu Hospital, from October 2019 to January 2020.

Patients

50 males and 51 females scheduled for anorectal surgery.

Interventions

We conducted two independent biased coin design up-and down trials by genders. The concentration of ropivacaine administered to the first patient of male and female were 0.25% with fixed volume of 14ml for male and 12ml for female patients based on our previous study. In case of failure, the concentration was increased by 0.05% in the next subject. Otherwise, the next subject was randomized to a concentration 0.05% less with a probability of 0.11, or the same concentration with a probability of 0.89. Success was defined as complete sensory blockade of perineal area 15 min after the block evidenced by the presence of a lax anal sphincter and pain-free surgery.

Main outcome measures

The MEC of ropivacaine to achieve a successful CEB in 90%(MEC90) of the patients.

Results

The MEC90 of ropivacaine for CEB were estimated to be 0.35% (95% CI 0.29 to 0.4%) for male and 0.353% (95%CI 0.22 to 0.4%) for female. By extrapolation to MEC in 99% of subjects (MEC99) and pooled adjacent violators algorithm (PAVA) adjusted responses, it would be optimal to choose 0.4% ropivacaine with a volume of 14ml for male and 12ml for female.

Conclusions

A concentration of 0.35% ropivacaine with a volume of 14ml provided a successful CEB in 90% of the male patients, while 0.353% ropivacaine with a volume of 12ml provided a successful CEB in 90% of the female patients. A concentration of 0.4% and a volume of 14ml for male and 12 ml for female would be successful in 99% of the patients.

Trial registration

Chictr.org.cn identifier: No. ChiCTR 1900024315.

SUBMITTER: Li X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8448308 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo relieve prostate biopsy-related pain, various local anesthetic methods have been used. The best approach was periprostatic nerve block (PNB) in the past decade. Recently, pelvic plexus block (PPB) was employed to ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Compared with the PNB, the PPB may block a more extensive area. Therefore, PPB may be more effective in relieving prostate biopsy-related pain. However, several prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PPB and PNB drew conflicting conclusions, so we compared the difference of pain control between PPB and PNB for prostate biopsy.MethodsThe following databases were retrieved up to October 2020: PubMed, Chinese biomedicine literature database, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Internet databases, Wan fang databases and Google Scholar. Only the RCTs were included. The main outcome measures were Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score and complications. The literature quality and extracted data were evaluated by two authors independently. The software Review Manager (version 5.3) was used to perform the data analysis that comparing the difference of VAS score and complications between PPB and PNB.ResultsAfter screening, six articles including 336 patients from PPB group and 337 patients from PNB group were performed meta-analysis in this study. The results showed that there were no significant difference of pain control in probe insertion and local anesthetic injection between PPB and PNB, while compared with PNB, patients with PPB experienced less pain during biopsy and 30 min after biopsy, respectively(MD = -0.57, 95% CI: -1.11 to -0.03, Z = 2.06, P = 0.04; MD = -0.21, 95% CI: -0.40 to -0.02, Z = 2.15, P = 0.03). In subgroup analysis, the pooled results showed that PPB was superior to PNB in 12-cores biopsy (pooled MD = -1.16, 95% CI: -1.61 to -0.71, P < 0.00001), and more than 40-ml prostate size, regardless of transrectal or transperineal prostate biopsy. The reported major complications were urinary retention, hematuria, infection and hemospermia. The pooled results showed that there were no obvious difference in complications between PPB group and PNB group.ConclusionsOverall, this meta-analysis suggests that PPB provides safe and effective pain control of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, and PPB is superior to PNB. In future, it also needs more high quality, large samples RCTs to verify.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Historically, the anterolateral interscalene block--deposition of local anesthetic adjacent to the brachial plexus roots/trunks--has been used for surgical procedures involving the shoulder. The resulting block frequently failed to provide surgical anesthesia of the hand and forearm, even though the brachial plexus at this level included all of the axons of the upper-extremity terminal nerves. However, it remains unknown whether deposition of local anesthetic adjacent to the seventh cervical root or inferior trunk results in anesthesia of the hand and forearm. METHODS:Using ultrasound guidance and a needle-in-plane posterior approach, a Tuohy needle was positioned with the tip located between the deepest and next-deepest visualized brachial plexus root/trunk, followed by injection of mepivacaine (1.5%). Grip strength and the tolerance to cutaneous electrical current in 5 terminal nerve distributions were measured at baseline and then every 5 minutes following injection for a total of 30 minutes. The primary end point was the proportion of cases in which the interscalene nerve block resulted in a decrease in grip strength of at least 90% and hand and forearm anesthesia (tolerance to >50 mA of current in all 5 terminal nerve distributions) within 30 minutes. The primary hypothesis was that a single-injection interscalene brachial plexus block produces a similar rate of anesthesia of the hand and forearm to the published success rate of 95% for other brachial plexus block approaches. RESULTS:Of 55 subjects with blocks placed per protocol, all had a successful block of the shoulder as defined by inability to abduct at the shoulder joint. Thirty-three subjects had measurements at 30 minutes following local anesthetic deposition, and only 5 (15%) of these subjects had a surgical block of the hand and forearm (P < 0.0001; 95% confidence interval, 6%-33%). We therefore reject the hypothesis that the interscalene block as performed in this study provides equivalent anesthesia to the hand and forearm compared with other brachial plexus block techniques. Block failures of the hand and forearm were due to inadequate cutaneous anesthesia of the ulnar (n = 27; 82%), median (n = 26; 78%), or radial (n = 22; 67%) distributions; the medial forearm (n = 25; 76%); and/or the lateral forearm (n = 14; 42%). Failure to achieve at least a 90% reduction in grip strength occurred in 16 subjects (48%). CONCLUSIONS:This study did not find evidence to support the hypothesis that local anesthetic injected adjacent to the deepest brachial plexus roots/trunks reliably results in surgical anesthesia of the hand and forearm.