Monahan Amanda M, Sztain Jacklynn F, Khatibi Bahareh, Furnish Timothy J, Jæger Pia, Sessler Daniel I, Mascha Edward J, You Jing, Wen Cindy H, Nakanote Ken A, Ilfeld Brian M
From the *Department of Anesthesiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California; †Department of Anesthesiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; ‡Outcomes Research Consortium, Cleveland, Ohio; §Department of Outcomes Research, Anesthesiology Institute, The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; Departments of ∥Quantitative Health Sciences and ¶Outcomes Research, The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; #Department of Ophthalmology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California; and **School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California.
Anesth Analg. 2016 May;122(5):1681-8. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001182.
It remains unknown whether continuous or scheduled intermittent bolus local anesthetic administration is preferable for adductor canal perineural catheters. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that scheduled bolus administration is superior or noninferior to a continuous infusion on cutaneous knee sensation in volunteers.
Bilateral adductor canal catheters were inserted in 24 volunteers followed by ropivacaine 0.2% administration for 8 hours. One limb of each subject was assigned randomly to a continuous infusion (8 mL/h) or automated hourly boluses (8 mL/bolus), with the alternate treatment in the contralateral limb. The primary end point was the tolerance to electrical current applied through cutaneous electrodes in the distribution of the anterior branch of the medial femoral cutaneous nerve after 8 hours (noninferiority delta: -10 mA). Secondary end points included tolerance of electrical current and quadriceps femoris maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength at baseline, hourly for 14 hours, and again after 22 hours.
The 2 administration techniques provided equivalent cutaneous analgesia at 8 hours because noninferiority was found in both directions, with estimated difference on tolerance to cutaneous current of -0.6 mA (95% confidence interval, -5.4 to 4.3). Equivalence also was found on all but 2 secondary time points.
No evidence was found to support the hypothesis that changing the local anesthetic administration technique (continuous basal versus hourly bolus) when using an adductor canal perineural catheter at 8 mL/h decreases cutaneous sensation in the distribution of the anterior branch of the medial femoral cutaneous nerve.
对于内收肌管周围神经导管,持续或定时间歇性推注局部麻醉药哪种方式更佳尚不清楚。因此,我们检验了以下假设:在志愿者中,定时推注给药在皮肤膝关节感觉方面优于或不劣于持续输注。
在24名志愿者双侧插入内收肌管导管,随后给予0.2%罗哌卡因,持续8小时。每个受试者的一侧肢体随机分配至持续输注组(8毫升/小时)或每小时自动推注组(8毫升/推注),对侧肢体采用另一种治疗方式。主要终点是8小时后通过皮肤电极施加于股内侧皮神经前支分布区域的电流耐受情况(非劣效性差值:-10毫安)。次要终点包括基线时、14小时内每小时以及22小时后电流耐受情况和股四头肌最大自主等长收缩力量。
两种给药技术在8小时时提供了等效的皮肤镇痛效果,因为在两个方向上均发现非劣效性,皮肤电流耐受估计差异为-0.6毫安(95%置信区间,-5.4至4.3)。除2个次要时间点外,在所有其他时间点也发现了等效性。
未发现证据支持以下假设:当以8毫升/小时的速度使用内收肌管周围神经导管时,改变局部麻醉药给药技术(持续基础给药与每小时推注)会降低股内侧皮神经前支分布区域的皮肤感觉。