Advertisement

Journal of Anesthesia

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 1003–1007 | Cite as

Retrolaminar block: analgesic efficacy and safety evaluation

  • Takeshi MurouchiEmail author
  • Michiaki Yamakage
Original Article

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.

Keywords

Retrolaminar block Breast surgery 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None declared.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zeballos J, Voscopoulos C, Kapottos M, Janfaza D, Vlassakov K. Ultrasound-guided retrolaminar paravertebral block. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:649–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departnent of AnesthesiaKitami Red Cross HospitalKitamiJapan
  2. 2.Department of AnesthesiologySapporo Medical University School of MedicineSapporoJapan

Personalised recommendations