JCDR - Register at Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X
Anaesthesia Section DOI : 10.7860/JCDR/2016/18946.7665
Year : 2016 | Month : Apr | Volume : 10 | Issue : 04 Full Version Page : UC14 - UC17

Optimum Concentration of Caudal Ropivacaine & Clonidine - A Satisfactory Analgesic Solution for Paediatric Infraumbilical Surgery Pain

Girish Chikkanayakanahalli Narasimhamurthy1, Muralidhara Danappa Patel2, Yvonne Menezes3, Kavyashree Nagenahalli Gurushanth4

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Shridevi Institute of Medical sciences and Research Hospital, Tumkur, Karnataka, India.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Shridevi Institute of Medical sciences and Research Hospital, Tumkur, Karnataka, India.
3 Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Goa Medical College, Goa-India.
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Shridevi Institute of Medical sciences and Research Hospital, Tumkur, Karnataka, India.


NAME, ADDRESS, E-MAIL ID OF THE CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Dr. Muralidhara Danappa Patel, No 28, 7th Cross, 1st Main, Hanumanthapura, Tumkur- 572103, India.
E-mail: binmurali@gmail.com
Abstract

Introduction

Ropivacaine is amide local anaesthetic pure S(-)enantiomer of bupivacaine. Its duration of analgesia is similar to that of Bupivacaine (in equivalent doses) but the motor block is slower in onset, less intense, shorter in duration for a given level of sensory block with lesser cardiac side effects but addition of an adjuvant like clonidine which is an imidazoline derivative has been studied for its sedative, anxiolytic and analgesic properties.

Aim

This study was aimed to show the optimum concentrations of Ropivacaine and Clonidine to maximize analgesia without side effects by evaluating its safety and efficacy.

Materials and Methods

Sixty children aged 2-10 years of ASA grade 1, scheduled to undergo infraumbilical surgeries were randomly allocated to Group A & Group B of 30 each. Group A received 0.2% Ropivacaine with normal saline and Group B received 0.2% Ropivacaine and preservative free Clonidine 1μg/kg, the total volume of solution being 1ml/kg haemodynamic changes were monitored intraoperatively and haemodynamic parameters along with motor blockade, pain score and sedation score were assessed postoperatively.

Statistical analysis

Done with unpaired student t and Mann-Whitney test.

Results

The groups were comparable regarding demographic characterstics. The mean duration of analgesia was prolonged in group B (12+2.22 hours) than in group A (6.53+1.16 hours) with p-value <0.001 leading to less rescue analgesia in former group. None of the children in the groups had a pain score of ≥ 4 at the end of 2 hours. A 6.6% and 60% of group A children had score of ≥ 4 at the end of 4th & 6th hour respectively. None in Group B had a score of ≥ 4. At the end of 8th hour, only 6.6% of the children in Group B had a pain score of ≥ 4 whereas it was 33.33% in Group A which is statistically significant. No bradycardia or hypotension and no significant sedation.

Conclusion

Combination of Ropivacaine and Clonidine in the concentration used (0.2% ropivacaine and 1μg/kg of clonidine) can be optimal for postoperative analgesia in paediatric population.

Keywords

Introduction

In the past, children had received inadequate analgesia due to lack of basic understanding or fear of addiction [1]. After understanding the pain pathways and assessment of pain, quality of analgesia in infants and children has gained special importance [2].

Caudal analgesia was first described and demonstrated by Meredith Campbell for paediatric cystoscopies way back in 1933 since then many advancements have been done in caudal anaesthesia with different concentrations of local anaesthetic agents and adjuvants also been studied for prolonging the analgesic effect [3]. Ropivacaine has been used for caudal analgesia in children and duration is similar to that of Bupivacaine (in equivalent doses) but the onset of motor block is slower, less intense and shorter in duration for a given level of sensory block with less cardiac and central nervous system toxicity [4]. To get adequate analgesic level we need more volume of ropivacaine which can increase the possibility of side effects so many adjuvants have been tried [57] to decrease the local anaesthetic volume and concentration. Clonidine alpha2-adrenergic agonist produces analgesia has been studied as an adjuvant to local anaesthetics so that it decreases concentration of local anaesthetic while providing better analgesia without significant side effects [8]. Different doses of clonidine and local anaesthetic agents in a mixture have been tried to get good analgesia [9,10]. So our study was conducted to compare the duration of postoperative analgesia, haemodynamic safety and adverse effects of caudal Ropivacaine and caudal Ropivacaine with Clonidine in different concentrations than in previous studies for better analgesia and minimal side effects in paediatric patients.

Materials and Methods

After Institutional ethical committee approval and a written informed consent from the parents this prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled study was conducted in Goa Medical College Hospital, Goa from 2012 to 2013. Sixty patients of ASA 1 children between 2-10 years of age, of either sex, scheduled to undergo infraumbilical surgeries (circumcision, herniotomy and orchidopexy) were selected in order to compare the duration of postoperative analgesia, haemodynamic stability and side effects of the study drugs. The patients were randomly allocated into two groups of 30 each: Group A, Group B by sealed envelope technique.

Group A: Received mixture of 0.2% Ropivacaine and normal saline.

Group B: Received mixture of 0.2% Ropivacaine and preservative free Clonidine 1μg/kg.

The total volume of solution was made up to 1ml/kg in both the groups. The attending anaesthesiologist administered the appropriate drug according to the code in the envelope. Name, age, hospital number, diagnosis and procedure were written in the same envelope, sealed and handed over to the investigator at the end of the procedure. A second observer did the patient assessment and data collection. The anaesthesiologist who was collecting the data was blinded to the contents of the study drug. After all the cases had been completed at the end of the study, the code was broken, study drug contents revealed, and data compiled. Patients with history /findings suggestive of Local infection, Bleeding diathesis, Pre-existing neurologic or obvious spinal diseases were excluded from the study.

All patients received 0.5mg/kg of midazolam orally as premedication 30 minutes prior to induction. Patients were connected with ECG, non invasive blood pressure and pulse oximeter for intraoperative monitoring. Baseline haemodynamic parameters e.g., Heart Rate (HR), Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP), Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP), Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) Oxygen Saturation (SPO2) were obtained. Patients were induced with increasing concentration of sevoflurane (0-8%) in 60% nitrous oxide and 40% oxygen mixture using face mask connected to Jackson Rees circuit. Intravenous access was secured after induction. An infusion of Ringer Lactate was administered according to the requirement.

The airway was maintained either using an appropriate sized facemask or laryngeal mask airway according to the discretion of the attending anaesthesiologist. Anaesthesia was maintained with 2-3% sevoflurane in oxygen-nitrous oxide (40:60) mixture.

After induction of anaesthesia, the patients were placed in left lateral position and a single shot caudal block was performed with full aseptic precautions using a 23G hypodermic needle. Aspiration was done to exclude dural puncture or vessel puncture and the drug was then injected. The site of injection was covered with a sterile dressing and the child was placed supine. Surgery was started 5 minutes after caudal injection.

Anaesthesia was subsequently maintained with oxygen 40%, nitrous oxide 60% and sevoflurane (2-3%). No intravenous analgesics or sedatives were administered.

After caudal anaesthesia haemodynamic changes were monitored every 5 minutes interval for 30 minutes and then 15 minutes interval till the end of operation. Postoperatively same parameters were monitored and recorded every 15 minutes for 2 hours in the post-anaesthetic care unit.

Intraoperatively analgesic efficacy was defined by haemodynamic stability. This was indicated by absence of an increase in heart rate or MAP to > 15% of pre incision baseline values and increase in heart rate or mean arterial pressure >15% and analgesic failure was indicated by the presence of above mentioned haemodynamic parameters within 15 minutes of start of surgery and cases were excluded from the study after giving analgesia with 2 μg/kg of fentanyl. Anaesthetic agents were discontinued at the beginning of skin closure. The duration of surgery was noted in both the groups. At the end of surgery no prophylactic pain relief was given and patients were transferred to post-anaesthetic care unit. Monitoring was continued for vital parameters for 24 hours. In addition pain score, sedation score and motor blockade were assessed. The heart rate, mean arterial pressure, oxygen saturation, pain score and sedation score were assessed for 2 hours in the post-anaesthetic care unit. The same parameters were monitored at 2,4,6,8,10,12,18 and 24 hour in the ward.

Motor block was assessed at the end of surgery, two hours in the post-anaesthetic care unit and at the end of six hours to detect any residual motor weakness by means of motor block score by using Bromage scale [Table/Fig-1]. Failure of oral commands were followed by tactile stimulus to lower limb to get a response [11].

Bromage scaling.

GradeCriteriaDegree of block
IFree movement of legs and feetNil (0%)
IIJust able to flex knees with free movement of feetPartial (33%)
IIIUnable to flex knees, but with free movement of feetAlmost complete (66%)
IVUnable to move legs or feetComplete (100%)

Assessment of pain was done by FLACC [Table/Fig-2] score at 2,4,6,8,10,12,18 and 24 hours postoperatively. Duration of adequate analgesia (defined as the time from caudal injection to the first time the FLACC pain score was noted to be 4 or more) was also recorded. Rescue medication was administered in the form of oral syrup of paracetamol 15mg/kg when the FLACC score was > 4. The number of doses of rescue medication required and the time to first administration.

Pain scoring FLACC scale.

Parameter012
FaceNo expressionOccasional grimaceFrequent to constant quivering chin.
LegsNormal position or relaxedUneasy, restless, tenseKicking or legs drawn up
ActivityLying quietSquirming, shifting back and forth, tenseArched, rigid or jerking
CryNo cryMoans or whimpersCrying steadily
ConsolabilityContent, relaxedReassurance, huggingDifficulty to console

Sedation was assessed by sedation score 0- awake, 1- arousable by voice, 2- arousable to pain, 3- unarousable. Score: 0 = no pain; 1-3 mild pain; 4-7 moderate pain; 8-10 severe pain


All the patients were observed for adverse effects in the postoperative period for 24 hours including nausea, vomiting, respiratory depression, residual motor blockade, urinary retention, hypotension and bradycardia. A decrease in mean arterial pressure or decrease in heart rate >30% of baseline was called as Hypotension or Bradycardia respectively and was treated by IV fluids, ephedrine or atropine accordingly. Respiratory depression was defined as a decrease in SpO2 to <93% requiring supplemental oxygen via face mask.

Statistical Analysis

The data thus obtained was statistically analysed using software SPSS (V 16) data were analysed using descriptive statistics (means, standard deviation, percentages) Unpaired t-test, Mann-whitney test. The p-value of < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

Pain score was assessed by FLACC scale [Table/Fig-2] at 2,4,6,8,10,12,18 and 24 hours postoperatively. Duration of adequate analgesia (defined as the time from caudal injection to the first time the FLACC pain score was noted to be 4 or more) was also recorded. Rescue medication was administered when the FLACC score was 4 or more. Demographic data [Table/Fig-3]. The groups were comparable with respect to age, weight, sex and duration of surgery difference was found to be insignificant. Pain scores > 4 and timings [Table/Fig-4]

Demographic characterstics.

CharacteristicGroup A(30)Mean+SDGroup B(30)Mean+SDp-value
Mean age (y)4.7 + 1.74.8 + 1.70.8206
Mean weight (kg)13.43 + 3.1413.73 + 2.80.6975
Mean duration of Surgery (minutes)40 + 8.240.83 + 7.90.6912
Gender M/F26/425/5>0.05

Data are mentioned as mean ±standard deviation M-Male F – Female


Pain score ≥ 4 at various time intervals.

Time interval (hours)Group AGroup Bp-value
200-
42(6.6%)0>0.05
618(60%)0<0.01
810(33.3%)2(6.6%)<0.01
105(16.6%)6(20%)>0.05
1216(53.3%)16(53.3%)>0.05
1811(36.6%)9(30%)>0.05
242(6.6%)3(10%)>0.05

Data represented absolute numbers (percentages) and p-values at each intervals


None of the children in both the groups had a pain score of ≥ 4 at the end of 2 hours. At the end of 4th hour, 6.6% of children in Group A and none of the children in Group B had a pain score of ≥ 4. At the end of 6th hour, 60% of children in Group A and none of the children in Group B had a pain score of ≥ 4 (p<0.01). At the end of 8th hour, 33.33% of children in Group A and 6.6% of the children in Group B had a pain score of ≥ 4. The difference was statistically significant between the 2 groups at 6th and 8th hour.

The mean duration of analgesia [Table/Fig-5,6] in Group A was 6.53 ± 1.16 hours and in Group B was 12 ± 2.22 hours. The duration of postoperative analgesia in group B was longer than in group A. This was statistically highly significant with p-value of < 0.001. No motor blockade was observed in both the groups in postoperative period [Table/Fig-5]. In Group A, 4 patients received 1 dose of rescue analgesia, 18 patients received 2 doses of rescue analgesia and 8 patients received 3 doses of rescue analgesia and Group B patients required minimal rescue analgesia, 24 patients received only one rescue analgesia and 6 received 2 doses which is highly significant (p <0.01), All the patients were observed for adverse effects in the postoperative period for 24 hours the incidence of nausea and vomiting was present in 4 patients (13.3%) in Group A compared to 3 patients (10%) in Group B [Table/Fig-5]. However, this was statistically insignificant (p >0.05). Sedation scoring [Table/Fig-7]: 22 patients of each group had a postoperative sedation score of 0 in the first 2 hours. 8 patients of each group had a postoperative sedation score of 1 in the first 2 hours. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in sedation scores between the groups and no sedation after 3 hours. Haemodynamic parameters [Table/Fig-8,9].

Duration of absolute analgesia, block and side effects.

ParameterGroup AGroup Bp-value
Duration of absolute analgesia (hours) after caudal block6.53±1.1212±2.22<0.0001
Motor blockadeAbsentAbsentNS
Number of rescue analgesic doses in 24 hours
One dose424<0.01
Two doses186<0.01
Three doses80<0.01
Incidence of side effects
1. Nausea/Vomiting4(13.3%)3 (10%)NS
2. Urinary retention, respiratory depression, Motor blockade00

*NS-Not significant

Data mentioned are mean with SD, absolute numbers or percentages (%)


Duration of absolute analgesia (hours) after caudal block.

Sedation score in the first 2 hours after surgery.

Mean heart rate and standard deviation.

Mean arterial pressure and standard deviation.

There was no significant difference (p >0.05) in Mean heart rate and mean arterial pressure between the two groups at any time interval. No Bradycardia or Hypotension in both the groups. There was no significant difference (p >0.05) in the oxygen saturation [Table/Fig-10] between the two groups at any time interval. No respiratory depression was observed at any time. There was no incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, urinary retention, motor blockade and respiratory depression in both the groups.

Mean oxygen saturation and standard deviation.

Discussion

In paediatric regional analgesia, single shot caudal epidural technique is one of the most reliable, safe and easy block to administer and is therefore, a commonly performed procedure for intraoperative and postoperative analgesia especially for infra umbilical surgeries in young children. One of the main drawbacks of this technique is the short duration of analgesia [12], even with the use of long acting local anaesthetics like Bupivacaine and Ropivacaine. Ivani G et al., showed 0.2% (2mg/kg) of Ropivacaine (1ml/kg) was enough to provide sensory block for lower abdominal surgeries [13] than 0.25% of ropivacaine which in same dose caused maximal plasma concentration after caudal injection [14] and Bosenberg and colleagues compared the analgesic efficacy of caudal block using different concentrations 1mg, 2mg and 3mg × ml(-1) of Ropivacaine and found that Ropivacaine 2mg ×ml(-1) (1ml/kg) provided satisfactory postoperative analgesia after elective inguinal surgery [15]. They found 1mg ×ml (-1) was less efficacius in providing analgesia and 3mg ×ml (-1) caused more motor blockade which is undesirable. So we chose 0.2% (2mg/ml) Ropivacaine which showed prolonged duration of action.

Ivani G et al., used plain 0.2% Ropivacaine (1ml/kg) and combination of 0.1% ropivacaine and clonidine (2 μg/kg) combination resulted in better analgesia in 0.1% ropivacaine –clonidine group, showed the group of clonidine and Ropivacaine (R 0.1) didn’t require rescue analgesia in first 24 hours [9]. S J Bajwa and colleagues found that the mean duration of analgesia was 8.5 + 3.4 hours with Ropivacaine 0.25% and 13.4 + 3.4 hours with Ropivacaine 0.25% and Clonidine 2 μg/kg without much haemodynamic or respiratory side effects of combined group [8]. Recently Manickam A et al., conducted a study to compare the efficacy of Ropivacaine 0.1% with Clonidine 1 μg/kg to that of plain 0.1% and 0.2% Ropivacaine for caudal analgesia in children and found that analgesia was prolonged in 0.1% ropivacaine with 1 μg/kg combination [16]. Laha A et al., showed addition of 2μg/kg to 0.2% ropivacaine prolonged the analgesic duration to (975±40.5 minutes) compared to only ropivacaine group (466±0.94 minutes) without side effects [17]. Our study correlated well with the above studies regarding analgesia by using 1μ/kg of clonidine and 0.2% ropivacaine (group B) (12±2.22 hours compared to 6.53±1.12 hours for ropivacaine group (Group A), so that group B required lesser rescue analgesica in first 24 hours.

In children, clonidine doses of 1 μg/kg, 1.5μg/kg, 2 μg/kg have been used without any adverse respiratory or haemodynamic effects. However, higher doses 5μg/kg clonidine [18] has been used in combination with lower concentration of bupivacaine were associated with bradycardia and lower blood pressure. In our study we used 1μ/kg of clonidine as an adjuvant to ropivacaine.

Our study required sensory level till T10 dermatome as operative procedures were subumbilical. The prescription scheme of Armitage suggests that for thoracolumbar blockade dose of local anaesthetic to be used is 1ml/kg. In our study, we have used 0.2% Ropivacaine which provides better quality of analgesia when compared to lower concentrations and Clonidine 1μg/kg which prolongs the duration of analgesia significantly and prove it as optimal mixture of drugs to be used which was not used by any previous study where either different concentration of ropivacaine or clonidine was used. Our study showed no significant difference in haemodynamic parameters like Heart Rate (HR), MAP, SBP, DBP and also no respiratory depression (Respiratory depression was defined as oxygen saturation of < 93%) between the two groups which correlated well with study result conducted by SJ Bajwa and colleagues. Pain assessment is the most important and critical component of pain management. Assessing pain in children is an ever challenging as well as a difficult task. In our study, we have used FLACC pain scale [19]. Rescue medication was administered in the form of oral paracetamol syrup 15mg/kg when the FLACC score was ≥ 4. In our study, there was no significant difference in sedation scores between the groups, which correlates well with the other studies [8,9].

Our study showed no residual motor blockade, which was assessed at the end of 2 hour and 6th hour correlated well with other previous studies [8,9,20].

Complications

In our study, 4(13.3%) of the children in Group A and 3(10%) of them in Group B had an episode of vomiting. The incidence of vomiting was comparable in both the groups. The addition of Clonidine to Ropivacaine in our study did not result in increase in the incidence of any other side effects.

Limitations

This is a single centre study which included 30 numbers of patients in each group which might be less and may need more number of studies with same concentration of the drugs. We did not measure plasma concentrations of local anaesthetics during the study.

Conclusion

Combination of Ropivacaine and Clonidine in the concentration used (0.2% ropivacaine and 1 μg/kg of clonidine) can be optimal for postoperative analgesia in paediatric population for infraumbilical surgeries without side effects.

Sedation was assessed by sedation score 0- awake, 1- arousable by voice, 2- arousable to pain, 3- unarousable. Score: 0 = no pain; 1-3 mild pain; 4-7 moderate pain; 8-10 severe painData are mentioned as mean ±standard deviation M-Male F – FemaleData represented absolute numbers (percentages) and p-values at each intervals*NS-Not significantData mentioned are mean with SD, absolute numbers or percentages (%)

References

[1]Aynsley Green A, Pain and stress in infancy and childhood where to now? Paediatr Anaesth 1996 6:167-72.  [Google Scholar]

[2]Tobais JD, Acute pain management in infants and children-Part 1: Pain pathways, pain assessment, and outpatient pain management Paediatr Ann 2014 43(7):e163-68.  [Google Scholar]

[3]Campbell MF, Caudal anaesthesia in children American J Urol 1933 30:245-49.  [Google Scholar]

[4]Kathiala G, Choudary G, Ropivacaine: A review of its pharmacology and clinical use Indian J Anaesth 2011 55(2):104-10.  [Google Scholar]

[5]Cook B, Grubb DJ, Aldridge LA, Doyle E, Comparison of the effects of adrenaline, clonidine and ketamine on the duration of caudal analgesia produced by bupivacaine in children Br J Anaesth 1995 75:698-701.  [Google Scholar]

[6]Shukla U, Prabhakar T, Malhotra K, Postoperative analgesia in children when using Clonidine or fentanyl with ropivacaine given caudally Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology 2011 27:205-10.  [Google Scholar]

[7]Gupta S, Pratap V, Addition of clonidine or dexmedetomidine to ropivacaine prolongs caudal analgesia in children Indian Journal of Pain 2014 28:36-41.  [Google Scholar]

[8]Bajwa SJS, Kaur J, Bajwa SK, Bakshi G, Singh K, Panda A, Caudal ropivacaine-clonidine: A better postoperative analgesic approach Indian J Anaesth 2010 54:226-30.  [Google Scholar]

[9]Ivani G, De Negri P, Conio A, Ropivacaine-clonidine combination for caudal blockade in children Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2000 44:446-49.  [Google Scholar]

[10]Tripi PA, Palmer JS, Thomas S, Elder JS, Clonidine increases duration of bupivacaine caudal analgesia for ureteroneocystostomy: a double blind prospective trial J Urol 2005 174:1081-83.  [Google Scholar]

[11]Bromage PR. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1978: 144  [Google Scholar]

[12]Verghese ST, Hannallah RS, Postoperative pain management in children Anaesthesiol Clin North America 2005 23:163-84.  [Google Scholar]

[13]Ivani G, Mereto N, Lampugnani E, Negri PD, Torre M, Mattioli G, Ropivacaine in paediatric surgery: Preliminary results Paediatr Anaesth 1998 8:127-29.  [Google Scholar]

[14]Habre W, Bergesio R, Johnson C, Hackett P, Joyce D, Sims C, Plasma ropivacaine concentrations following caudal analgesia in children Anaesthesiology 1998 89:A1245  [Google Scholar]

[15]Bosenberg A, Thomas J, Lopez T, Lybeck A, Huizar K, Larsson LE, The efficacy of caudal ropivacaine 1, 2 and 3 mg × ] [-1] for postoperative analgesia in children Paediatr Anaesth 2002 12:53-58.  [Google Scholar]

[16]Manickam A, Vakamudi M, Parameshwari A, Chetan C, Efficacy of clonidine as an adjuvant to ropivacaine for caudal analgesia in children undergoing subumbilical surgery J. Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2012 28(2):185-89.  [Google Scholar]

[17]Laha A, Ghosh G, Das H, Comparison of caudal analgesia between ropivacaine and ropivacaine with clonidine in children: a randomized controlled trial Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia 2012 6:197-200.  [Google Scholar]

[18]Motsch J, Böttiger BW, Bach A, Böhrer H, Skoberne T, Martin E, Caudal clonidine and bupivacaine for combined epidural and general anaesthesia in children Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1997 41:877-83.  [Google Scholar]

[19]Merkel SI, Voepel-Lewis T, Shayevitz JR, Malviya S, The FLACC: a behavioural scale for scoring postoperative pain in young children Paediatr Nurs 1997 23:293-97.  [Google Scholar]

[20]Lonnqvist PA, Westrin P, Larsson BA, Olsson GL, Lybeck A, Huledal G, Ropivacaine pharmacokinetics after caudal block in 1-8-year-old children Br J Anaesth 2000 85:506-11.  [Google Scholar]