Postoperative Patient Controlled Epidural Analgesia After Total Knee Arthroplasty With 2ug/ml Fentanyl Combine With 0.2% Ropivacaine or 0.2% Levobupivcaine
1 other identifier
interventional
60
1 country
1
Brief Summary
Postoperative epidural analgesia (EA) is an effective and well-accepted modality of pain relief technique after having total knee replacement operation(1,4). Patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) has been shown to be safe and effective in standard ward setting(2) and results in reduced epidural analgesic requirements(3). Besides, it also bear the advantage of avoidance of overdose, reduction of waiting times and involvement of patients in their analgesic regimen(3). Both ropivacaine and levobupivacaine are the local anaesthetic using in epidural analgesia which has been proven to be safe and effective(4). 0.2% Ropivacaine with 2ug/ml fentanyl has been used in our locality for more than 8 years. Another local anaesthetics, levobupivacaine, a S-enantiomer of bupivacaine has come up in Hong Kong, which has been proved to be safe, effective and may be better value for money. These two drugs has been proven to have similar analgesic potency in using as EA for postoperative pain relief for other operation(5,6,7) and for orthropaedics operation but in different concentration(4). Concerns have been raised about the introduction of the levobupivacaine in the departmental protocol. Objectives of this study are A)to determine the equivalence of two local anaesthetics regimen ; 0.2% ropivacaine with 2ug/ml fentanyl and 0.2% levobupivacaine with 2ug/ml fentanyl and B) to assess the cost-effectiveness of using these two regimens. The null hypothesis is that the difference of analgesic effect, presented with visual analogue score, of two patient controlled epidural analgesia regimen, the 0.2% ropivacaine with 2 ug/ml fentanyl and 0.2% levobupivacaine with 2ug/ml fentanyl is higher than the threshold of 9 mm VAS. (8,9,10)
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P25-P50 for phase_4
Started Apr 2010
Shorter than P25 for phase_4
1 active site
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
Study Start
First participant enrolled
April 1, 2010
CompletedFirst Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
July 7, 2010
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
July 8, 2010
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
September 1, 2010
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
December 1, 2010
CompletedJuly 8, 2010
February 1, 2010
5 months
July 7, 2010
July 7, 2010
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (1)
Pain score
as well as complications from epidural analgesia are also going to record and monitored
48hours after start epidural analgesia
Secondary Outcomes (1)
cost/treatment
48hours
Study Arms (2)
Levobupivacaine
EXPERIMENTALpatient control epidural analgeisa using 0.2% levobupivacaine with 2ug/ml fentanyl
Ropivacaine
ACTIVE COMPARATORpatient controlled epidural analgesia using 0.2% ropivacaine with 2ug/ml fentanyl
Interventions
patient control epidural analgesia using 0.2% levobupivacaine with 2ug/ml fentanyl
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- \> 18 years old, ASA I -III and
- Undergoing total knee arthroplasty
- Combine spinal-epidural anaesthesia
You may not qualify if:
- Known hypersensitivity to amide-type local anaesthetics
- Known hypersensitivity to opioids
- Known history of severe cardiovascular, renal, hepatic, neurological or psychiatric disease as judged by the investigator
- Known history of peripheral neuropathies
- Those receiving chronic analgesic therapy, or any contraindication for epidural analgesia (e.g. clotting disorders, or history of lumbar surgery)
- Inability to perform a pain score, or pregnancy or lactation
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
Study Sites (1)
United Christian Hospital
Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Related Publications (1)
Reference 1. Block et al. Efficiancy of postoperative epidural analgesia: A meta-analysis. JAMA 290: 2455-63 2. Werawatganon T. Patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia versus continuous epidural analgesia for pain after intra-abdominal surgery. The Cochrane Databas of systemic reviews. Issue 3 Art. No.: No.: CD 004044. DOI: 10.1002/14651858. CD004088.pub2. 3. Liu SS et al. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia with bupivacaine and fentanyl on hospital wards: propective experience with 1,030 surgical patients Anesthesiology 88: 388-95 4. Silvasti M et al. Patient-controlled analgesia versus continuous epidural analgesia after total knee arthroplasty Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 42: 576 - 80 5. Stand T et al. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia reduces analgesic requirements compared to continuous epidural infusion after major abdominal surgery. Can J Anaesth 50:258-64 6. Linda S. et al. Relative Analgesic Potencies of Levobupivacaine and Ropivacaine for Epidural Analgesia in Labor. Anesthesiology 2003; 99:1354-8 7. Marc Senard et al. Epidural Levobupivacaine 0.1% or Ropivacaine 0.1% Combined with Morphine Provides Comparable Analgesia After Abdominal Surgery Anesth Analg 2004;98:389-94 8. Kelly AM The minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale pain score does not differ with severity of pain.Emerg Med J 2001; 18:205-07 9. Mark MSM et al. The minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale pain score in a local emergency setting. Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine 2009; 16(4): 234-6 10. Kelly AM. Does the clinically significant difference in visual analog scale pain scores vary with gender, age, or cause of pain? Acad Emerg Med. 1998 Nov; 5(11): 1086-90.
BACKGROUND
MeSH Terms
Interventions
Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Central Study Contacts
Timothy Brake
CONTACT
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- phase 4
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- DOUBLE
- Who Masked
- PARTICIPANT, INVESTIGATOR
- Purpose
- TREATMENT
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
July 7, 2010
First Posted
July 8, 2010
Study Start
April 1, 2010
Primary Completion
September 1, 2010
Study Completion
December 1, 2010
Last Updated
July 8, 2010
Record last verified: 2010-02