Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Retrolaminar block: analgesic efficacy and safety evaluation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Anesthesia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Retrolaminar block (RLB) is a thoracic truncal block that can produce analgesia for the thoracic and abdominal wall. However, the characteristics of RLB are not well known. The aim of this study was to determine analgesic efficacy by measuring postoperative consume of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), additional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) rescue, and opioid rescue. Our secondary analysis included assessment of the chronological change in arterial levobupivacaine concentrations after the block.

Methods

This prospective, randomized, double-blinded study included 30 patients scheduled for modified radical mastectomy under general anesthesia. The patients were randomized to receive either a landmark-guided RLB or paravertebral block (PVB) catheter placement on T4. Continuous infusion with 4 ml/h of 0.25 % levobupivacaine was started for 72 h, after initial injection of 20 ml 0.375 % levobupivacaine before surgery. Postoperative pain was compared using the amount of block PCA (3 ml 0.25 % levobupivacaine with 30-min lockout), NSAID, and opioid rescue. Arterial blood was sampled for 120 min after the initial injection.

Results

The frequency of postoperative block PCA use was significantly high after RLB in 24 h [p = 0.01; 6 (3–12) vs. 2.5 (0.3–3) times, respectively]. There was no PCA use after 24 h in either group. There was no postoperative opioid rescue use throughout the study. After RLB and PVB, there was no significant difference in T max (p = 0.14; 15 ± 8 vs. 15 ± 8 min, respectively) and C max (p = 0.2; 0.9 ± 0.2 vs. 0.9 ± 0.3 µg/ml, respectively), and all the concentrations were below the threshold of local anesthetic systemic toxicity.

Conclusion

Continuous RLB was not inferior to PVB except for the first 24 h, and was satisfactory after mastectomy. RLB showed safe, low peak arterial levobupivacaine concentrations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Voscopoulos C, Palaniappan D, Zeballos J, Ko H, Janfaza D, Vlassakov K. The ultrasound-guided retrolaminar block. Can J Anaesth. 2013;60:888–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jüttner T, Werdehausen R, Hermanns H, Monaca E, Danzeisen O, Pannen BH, Janni W, Winterhalter M. The paravertebral lamina technique: a new regional anesthesia approach for breast surgery. J Clin Anesth. 2011;23:443–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Qin W-W, Jiao Z, Zhong M-K, Shi X-J, Zhang J, Li Z-D, Cui X-Y. Simultaneous determination of procaine, lidocaine, ropivacaine, tetracaine and bupivacaine in human plasma by high-performance liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr B Anal Biomed Life Sci. 2010;878:1185–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kehlet H, Wilkinson RC, Fischer HBJ, Camu F. PROSPECT: evidence-based, procedure-specific postoperative pain management. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2007;21:149–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schnabel A, Reichl SU, Kranke P, Pogatzki-Zahn EM, Zahn PK. Efficacy and safety of paravertebral blocks in breast surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105:842–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Agarwal RR, Wallace AM, Madison SJ, Morgan AC, Mascha EJ, Ilfeld BM. Single-injection thoracic paravertebral block and postoperative analgesia after mastectomy: a retrospective cohort study. J Clin Anesth. 2015;27:371–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Apfel CC, Korttila K, Abdalla M, Kerger H, Turan A, Vedder I, Zernak C, Danner K, Jokela R, Pocock SJ, Trenkler S, Kredel M, Biedler A, Sessler DI, Roewer N. A factorial trial of six interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2441–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Zeballos J, Voscopoulos C, Kapottos M, Janfaza D, Vlassakov K. Ultrasound-guided retrolaminar paravertebral block. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:649–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Naja ZM, Naccache N, Ziade F, El-Rajab M, Itani T, Baraka A. Multilevel nerve stimulator-guided paravertebral block as a sole anesthetic technique for breast cancer surgery in morbidly obese patients. J Anesth. 2011;25:760–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pace MM, Sharma B, Anderson-Dam J, Fleischmann K, Warren L, Stefanovich P. Ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral blockade: a retrospective study of the incidence of complications. Anesth Analg. 2016;122:1186–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Knudsen K, Suurküla MB, Blomberg S, Sjövall J, Edvardsson N. Central nervous and cardiovascular effects of i.v. infusions of ropivacaine, bupivacaine, and placebo in volunteers. Br J Anaesth. 1997;78:507–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Karmakar MK, Ho AM, Law BK, Wong AS, Shafer SL, Gin T. Arterial and venous pharmacokinetics of ropivacaine with and without epinephrine after thoracic paravertebral block. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:704–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takeshi Murouchi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None declared.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Murouchi, T., Yamakage, M. Retrolaminar block: analgesic efficacy and safety evaluation . J Anesth 30, 1003–1007 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-016-2230-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-016-2230-1

Keywords

Navigation