Clinical Studies on Epidural and Spinal Postoperative Analgesia : With Special Reference to Continuous Techniques of Administration and Adjuvant Drugs

Continuous epidural analgesia (CEA) and continuous spinal postoperative analgesia (CSPA) provided by a mixture of local anaesthetic and opioid are widely used for postoperative pain relief. E.g., with the introduction of so-called microcatheters, CSPA found its way particularly in orthopaedic surgery. These techniques, however, may be associated with dose-dependent side-effects as hypotension, weakness in the legs, and nausea and vomiting. At times, they may fail to offer sufficient analgesia, e.g., because of a misplaced catheter. The correct position of an epidural catheter might be confirmed by the supposedly easy and reliable epidural stimulation test (EST). The aims of this thesis were to determine a) whether the efficacy, tolerability, and reliability of CEA might be improved by adding the α2-adrenergic agonists adrenaline and clonidine to CEA, and by the repeated use of EST during CEA; and, b) the feasibility of CSPA given through a microcatheter after vascular surgery. Studies I IV were double-blinded, randomized, and controlled trials; Study V was of a diagnostic, prospective nature. Patients underwent arterial bypass surgery of the legs (I, n=50; IV, n=46), total knee arthroplasty (II, n=70; III, n=72), and abdominal surgery or thoracotomy (V, n=30). Postoperative lumbar CEA consisted of regular mixtures of ropivacaine and fentanyl either without or with adrenaline (2 µg/ml (I) and 4 µg/ml (II)) and clonidine (2 µg/ml (III)). CSPA (IV) was given through a microcatheter (28G) and contained either ropivacaine (max. 2 mg/h) or a mixture of ropivacaine (max. 1 mg/h) and morphine (max. 8 µg/h). Epidural catheter tip position (V) was evaluated both by EST at the moment of catheter placement and several times during CEA, and by epidurography as reference diagnostic test. CEA and CSPA were administered for 24 or 48 h. Study parameters included pain scores assessed with a visual analogue scale, requirements of rescue pain medication, vital signs, and side-effects. Adrenaline (I and II) had no beneficial influence as regards the efficacy or tolerability of CEA. The total amounts of epidurally-infused drugs were even increased in the adrenaline group in Study II (p=0.02, RM ANOVA). Clonidine (III) augmented pain relief with lowered amounts of epidurally infused drugs (p=0.01, RM ANOVA) and reduced need for rescue oxycodone given i.m. (p=0.027, MW-U; median difference 3 mg (95% CI 0 7 mg)). Clonidine did not contribute to sedation and its influence on haemodynamics was minimal. CSPA (IV) provided satisfactory pain relief with only limited blockade of the legs (no inter-group differences). EST (V) was often related to technical problems and difficulties of interpretation, e.g., it failed to identify the four patients whose catheters were outside the spinal canal already at the time of catheter placement. As adjuvants to lumbar CEA, clonidine only slightly improved pain relief, while adrenaline did not provide any benefit. The role of EST applied at the time of epidural catheter placement or repeatedly during CEA remains open. The microcatheter CSPA technique appeared effective and reliable, but needs to be compared to routine CEA after peripheral arterial bypass surgery.