Skip Navigation



BJA Advance Access published online on February 7, 2006
British Journal of Anaesthesia, doi:10.1093/bja/ael018
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
96/4/497    most recent
ael018v1
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Eroglu, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Eroglu, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2006. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Accepted January 9, 2006

Clinical Investigation

A comparison of patient-controlled subacromial and i.v. analgesia after open acromioplasty surgery

A. Eroglu 1 *

1 Department of Anaesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
A. Eroglu, E-mail: aheroglu{at}hotmail.com


  Abstract

Background. The aim of this study was to compare three patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) techniques for pain relief after acromioplasty. These techniques included use of subacromial ropivacaine, subacromial fentanyl or i.v. fentanyl.

Methods. Forty-eight patients scheduled for open acromioplasty surgery were prospectively randomized to receive ropivacaine 0.2% (Group R) or fentanyl 4 µg ml-1 (Group F) for subacromial analgesia, or fentanyl 4 µg ml-1 (Group C) for i.v. analgesia. All patients received background infusion at a rate of 5 ml h-1 plus a PCA bolus dose of 3 ml with a lockout time of 20 min. In addition, rescue analgesia with tramadol 50-100 mg i.v. was available on demand. Pain relief was regularly assessed using a visual analogue scale (0-10 cm) and side-effects were noted.

Results. The postoperative pain scores at 2, 4, 6 and 12 h after the start of PCA were higher in Group F compared with Group R and Group C (P<0.001), However, the pain scores at the other time points were similar between the three groups. Pain scores, incremental dose requested and received, total volume of analgesic solution infused and rescue tramadol were similar between Group R and Group C. Specific side-effects were similar in the three groups.

Conclusion. The PCA techniques using subacromial ropivacaine or fentanyl i.v. provided similar and adequate pain relief and minimal side-effects after open acromioplasty surgery. The PCA using subacromial fentanyl was not as effective as either subacromial ropivacaine or i.v. fentanyl.

Keywords: analgesia, patient-controlled; analgesic techniques, i.v., subacromial; analgesics opioid, fentanyl; anaesthetics local, ropivacaine; surgery, acromioplasty.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.