// you’re reading...

Nerve Blocks

Needles for Neurosurgery: Do preoperative skull blocks improve post-operative pain scores?

Interestingly, not the primary endpoint studied in this article. While the study was adequately powered to detect the hemodynamic endpoint, the same is not true for the post-operative pain scores. The aggregate 1-4h data do suggest a trend towards improvement in post-op pain scores that is statistically significant.

All in all, a nicely written article worth reading. Especially enjoyed the well-written and appropriately researched discussion.

J Neurosurg. 2008 Jul;109(1):44-9
Effect of ropivacaine skull block on perioperative outcomes in patients with supratentorial brain tumors and comparison with remifentanil: a pilot study.
Gazoni FM, Pouratian N, Nemergut EC.

Department of Anesthesiology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908-0710, USA.

OBJECT: Skull blockade for craniotomy may result in the reduction of sympathetic stimulation associated with the application of head pins (”pinning”), improvement in intraoperative hemodynamic stability, and a decrease in intraoperative anesthetic requirements. Postoperative benefits may include a decrease in pain, in analgesic requirements, and in the incidence of nausea and vomiting. The authors examined the potential benefits of a skull block in patients in whom a maintenance anesthetic consisting of sevoflurane and a titratable remifentanil infusion was used. In other studies examining the ability of a skull block to improve perioperative outcomes, investigators have not used remifentanil. METHODS: Thirty patients presenting for resection of a supratentorial tumor were prospectively enrolled. Patients were randomized into 2 groups as follows: 14 patients (skull block group) received a skull block with 0.5% ropivacaine at least 15 minutes prior to pinning, whereas the remaining 16 patients (control group) did not. RESULTS: Patients in the skull block group did not have a significant increase in blood pressure or heart rate with placement of head pins, whereas patients in the control group did. Nevertheless, there was no difference in blood pressure variability between the groups. The mean intraoperative concentration of sevoflurane (1.0% in both groups, p = 0.703) and remifentanil (0.163 microg/kg/min compared with 0.205 microg/kg/min, p = 0.186) used was similar in both groups. During the postoperative period, there was no difference in the 1-, 2-, or 4-hour visual analog scale scores; in the need for postoperative narcotic analgesia (0.274 morphine equivalent mg/kg compared with 0.517 morphine equivalent mg/kg, p = 0.162); or in the incidence of nausea or vomiting. CONCLUSIONS:Prospective analysis of perioperative skull blockade failed to demonstrate significant benefit in patients treated with a remifentanil infusion.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • TwitThis

Related posts:

  1. The Effect of Perioperative IV Lidocaine on Post-Op Pain and Immune Function
  2. Pre-treatment with morphine does not prevent the development of remifentanil-induced hyperalgesia. [Can J Anaesth. 2008] – PubMed Result
  3. Pain Medicine: Acute and Persistent Postoperative Pain after Breast Surgery

Discussion

One comment for “Needles for Neurosurgery: Do preoperative skull blocks improve post-operative pain scores?”

  1. thanks for sharing..

    Posted by gery | October 23, 2009, 10:07 pm

Post a comment

Calendar of Posts

March 2009
S M T W T F S
« Feb   Apr »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Subscribe to SMS

By confirming my cell number, I agree that I am responsible for all of my carrier text messaging charges.

Disclaimer: Medicine is an ever-changing science. As new research and clinical experience broadens our knowledge, changes in treatment and techniques are required. The author has checked with sources believed to be reliable in an effort to provide information that is complete and generally in accord with the standards accepted at the time of publication. The opinions expressed in this work represent those of the author and, in view of the possibility of human error or changes in medical sciences, neither the author nor the University of Florida nor any other party who has been involved in the preparation or publication of this work warrants that the information contained herein is in every respect accurate or complete, and they are not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from the use of such information. Readers and viewers are encouraged to confirm the information contained herein with other sources.