NCT01158586

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

43
At Risk

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Trial has exceeded expected completion date
Enrollment
60

participants targeted

Target at P25-P50 for phase_4

Timeline
Completed

Started Apr 2010

Shorter than P25 for phase_4

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
unknown

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

Completed
3 months until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

July 7, 2010

Completed
1 day until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

July 8, 2010

Completed
2 months until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

September 1, 2010

Completed
3 months until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

December 1, 2010

Completed
Last Updated

July 8, 2010

Status Verified

February 1, 2010

Enrollment Period

5 months

First QC Date

July 7, 2010

Last Update Submit

July 7, 2010

Conditions

Keywords

post total knee replacementpatient controlepidural analgesia

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

EXPERIMENTAL

patient control epidural analgeisa using 0.2% levobupivacaine with 2ug/ml fentanyl

Drug: Levobupivacaine

Ropivacaine

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

patient controlled epidural analgesia using 0.2% ropivacaine with 2ug/ml fentanyl

Drug: Levobupivacaine

Interventions

patient control epidural analgesia using 0.2% levobupivacaine with 2ug/ml fentanyl

LevobupivacaineRopivacaine

Eligibility Criteria

Age18 Years+
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersNo
Age GroupsAdult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

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

RECRUITING

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

Levobupivacaine

Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)

BupivacaineAnilidesAmidesOrganic ChemicalsAniline CompoundsAmines

Central Study Contacts

Anthony Njo, MBBS; FHKCA; FANZCA

CONTACT

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

Locations