Search

Background: Epidural analgesia has become the standard of care for knee replacement surgeries worldwide. Bupivacaine has been used successfully for many years. Epidural ropivacaine is now being used increasingly and seems to have benefits other than just pain relief, in terms of a better safety profile. Aim: To compare the efficacy of bupivacaine 0.125% (Group B) versus two concentrations of ropivacaine 0.1% (Group R1) and 0.2% (Group R2), in terms of pain scores, requirement of rescue analgesia, related adverse effects, and duration of postoperative (PO) hospital stay. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted from the acute pain service data of patients who underwent joint replacement surgeries in one or both limbs, over a span of 6 months. Patients were allocated to and analyzed under one of the three groups based on the drug concentration used postoperatively by epidural infusion. Data retrieved were demographic data, daily average visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, rescue analgesia given, adverse effects, and PO hospital stay days for all three groups. Results: Demographic data were comparable between the three groups. Daily average VAS pain scores on days 1 and 2 were significantly higher in Group R1. Groups B and R2 were comparable. There was significantly more requirement of rescue analgesia in Group R1 on day 1. Day 2 showed no significant difference in rescue analgesic requirement in all three groups. Days of PO hospital stay were significantly higher in Group R1. Adverse effects such as hypotension and delayed motor block were higher in Group B. Conclusion: Ropivacaine 0.2% and bupivacaine 0.125% were equally efficacious in terms of VAS pain scores, rescue analgesic requirement, and duration of PO hospital stay, but ropivacaine had a better safety profile in terms of less hypotension and lesser motor block.