Risk factors for bacterial catheter colonization in regional anaesthesia

BACKGROUND: Although several potential risk factors have been discussed, risk factors associated with bacterial colonization or even infection of catheters used for regional anaesthesia are not very well investigated. METHODS: In this prospective observational trial, 198 catheters at several anatomical sites where placed using a standardized technique. The site of insertion was then monitored daily for signs of infection (secretion at the insertion site, redness, swelling, or local pain). The catheters were removed when clinically indicated (no or moderate postoperative pain) or when signs of potential infection occurred. After sterile removal they were prospectively analyzed for colonization, defined as > 15 colony forming units. RESULTS: 33 (16.7%) of all catheters were colonized, and 18 (9.1%) of these with additional signs of local inflammation. Two of these patients required antibiotic treatment due to superficial infections. Stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with catheter colonization. Out of 26 potential factors, three came out as statistically significant. Catheter placement in the groin (odds-ratio and 95%-confidence interval: 3.4; 1.5–7.8), and repeated changing of the catheter dressing (odds-ratio: 2.1; 1.4–3.3 per removal) increased the risk for colonization, whereas systemic antibiotics administered postoperatively decreased it (odds ratio: 0.41; 0.12–1.0). CONCLUSION: Colonization of peripheral and epidural nerve catheter can only in part be predicted at the time of catheter insertion since two out of three relevant variables that significantly influence the risk can only be recorded postoperatively. Catheter localisation in the groin, removal of the dressing and omission of postoperative antibiotics were associated with, but were not necessarily causal for bacterial colonization. These factors might help to identify patients who are at increased risk for catheter colonization

Influence of Anaesthesia on Mobilisation Following Hip Fracture Surgery : An Observational Study: 麻醉技術對髖部骨折病人術後活動能力的影響：一項觀察性研究

Background Anaesthetic technique can influence mortality and morbidity following hip fracture surgery. However, its influence on postoperative mobilisation is not clear. In this study, we evaluated the influence of anaesthetic technique on postoperative mobilisation. Methods In this prospective observational study, we included all consecutive patients who underwent surgery for hip fracture between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2013 at our institution. Any patients who died prior to mobilisation or who could not be followed up after surgery were excluded. Data was collected on demographics, clinical characteristics, anaesthesia technique and surgical factors, and date and time of admission, operation, first mobilisation and discharge. Results Of the 1040 patients included in the analysis, 264 received general anaesthesia only (Group GA), 322 received general anaesthesia with regional anaesthesia (Group GARA), and 454 received central neuraxial blockade anaesthesia with or without sedation (Group CNB). There was no significant difference in age (p = 0.56), sex (p = 0.23), number of comorbidities (p = 0.06), residential status (p = 0.18), time to surgery (p = 0.10) and length of hospital stay (p = 0.30) between the three groups. There was a statistically significant difference in ASA grade (p = 0.01), implant type used (p = 0.04), grade of operating surgeon (p = 0.02) and grade of anaesthetist during surgery (p = 0.004) among the three groups. Patients in Group GARA had a median time-to-first mobilisation of 23.8 hours after surgery, compared to 24.1 hours in Group GA and 24.3 hours in Group CNB. This difference was not statistically significant after controlling for confounding factors (p = 0.45). Conclusion Our results show that anaesthetic technique does not influence time-to-first mobilisation after hip fracture surgery

A randomised controlled trial for the effectiveness of intra-articular Ropivacaine and Bupivacaine on pain after knee arthroscopy: the DUPRA (DUtch Pain Relief after Arthroscopy)-trial

In this double-blinded, randomised clinical trial, the aim was to compare the analgesic effects of low doses of intra-articular Bupivacaine and Ropivacaine against placebo after knee arthroscopy performed under general anaesthesia. A total of 282 patients were randomised to 10 cc NaCl 0.9%, 10 cc Bupivacaine 0.5% or 10 cc Ropivacaine 0.75%. Patients received the assigned therapy by intra-articular injection after closure of the portal. Pain and satisfaction were measured at one, 4 h and 5-7 days after arthroscopy with Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) -scores. NSAID consumption was also recorded. One-h NRS-scores at rest were higher in the NaCl group compared with the Bupivacaine group (P <0.01), 1 h NRS-scores in flexion were higher in the NaCl group compared with the Bupivacaine (P <0.01) and Ropivacaine (P <0.01) groups. NRS-satisfaction at 4 h was higher for the Bupivacaine group compared with the NaCl group (P = 0.01). Differences in NRS-scores were significant but low in magnitude. NSAID consumption was lower in the Bupivacaine group compared with the NaCl group (P <0.01). The results of this randomised clinical trial demonstrate improved analgesia after administration of low doses of intra-articular Bupivacaine and Ropivacaine after arthroscopy of the knee. Considering reports of Bupivacaine and Ropivacaine being chondrotoxic agents and the relatively small improvement on patient comfort found in this trial, it is advised to use systemic anaesthetic instead of intra-articular Bupivacaine or Ropivacaine for pain relief after knee arthroscopy.

Single-shot intraoperative local anaesthetic infiltration does not reduce morphine consumption after total hip arthroplasty: a double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized study

International audienceBACKGROUND:The infiltration of local anaesthetic (LA), ketorolac, and epinephrine has been suggested to be effective for analgesia after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The part of action of each component of the mixture remains unclear. We investigated the contribution of infiltration of ropivacaine alone on the morphine consumption during the first 24 h after surgery.METHODS:Sixty patients undergoing primary THA were included in this prospective randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial, after IRB approval and informed consent. Surgical and general anaesthetic management were standardized. At the end of surgery, 80 ml of ropivacaine 0.2% (160 mg) or saline was infiltrated. The primary endpoint was morphine consumption 24 h after surgery. The secondary endpoints were: visual analogue scale scores and opioid side-effects at H2, H4, H8, H12, H24, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, rehabilitation programme progress, chronic pain level, analgesic consumption, and surgical result at 3 months and 1 yr after surgery. The observation period was 1 yr.RESULTS:Groups were similar for patient characteristic and perioperative characteristics. The ropivacaine wound infiltration did not reduce morphine consumption at 24 h [median (25th and 75th inter-quartile) 27 (17-37) mg in the ropivacaine group vs 24 (18-34) mg in the placebo group, P=0.51] or its side-effects. No effect was found on rehabilitation progress or chronic pain after 3 months or 1 yr, but these were not the main endpoints of the study.CONCLUSIONS:Ropivacaine infiltration alone did not reduce morphine consumption at 24 h after operation nor did it improve postoperative rehabilitation