Sato, IzumiIwasaki, HajimeLuthe, Sarah KyuragiIida, TakafumiKanda, Hirotsugu2020-11-092020-11-092020-06-03Sato, I., Iwasaki, H., Luthe, S. K., Iida, T., & Kanda, H. (2020). Comparison of intrathecal morphine with continuous patient-controlled epidural anesthesia versus intrathecal morphine alone for post-cesarean section analgesia: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiology, 20(1), 138. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01050-61471-2253https://hdl.handle.net/1805/24326Background Several neuraxial techniques have demonstrated effective post-cesarean section analgesia. According to previous reports, it is likely that patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) without opioids is inferior to intrathecal morphine (IM) alone for post-cesarean section analgesia. However, little is known whether adding PCEA to IM is effective or not. The aim of this study was to compare post-cesarean section analgesia between IM with PCEA and IM alone. Methods Fifty patients undergoing elective cesarean section were enrolled in this prospective randomized study. Patients were randomized to one of two groups: IM group and IM + PCEA group. All patients received spinal anesthesia with 12 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine, 10 μg of fentanyl, and 150 μg of morphine. Patients in IM + PCEA group received epidural catheterization through Th11–12 or Th12-L1 before spinal anesthesia and PCEA (basal 0.167% levobupivacaine infusion rate of 6 mL/h, bolus dose of 3 mL in lockout interval of 30 min) was commenced at the end of surgery. A numerical rating scale (NRS) at rest and on movement at 4,8,12,24,48 h after the intrathecal administration of morphine were recorded. In addition, we recorded the incidence of delayed ambulation and the number of patients who requested rescue analgesics. We examined NRS using Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test following repeated measures analysis of variance; p < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results Twenty-three patients in each group were finally analyzed. Mean NRS at rest was significantly higher in IM group than in IM + PCEA group at 4 (2.7 vs 0.6), 8 (2.2 vs 0.6), and 12 h (2.5 vs 0.7), and NRS during mobilization was significantly higher in IM group than in IM + PCEA group at 4 (4.9 vs 1.5), 8 (4.8 vs 1.9), 12 (4.9 vs 2), and 24 h (5.7 vs 3.5). The number of patients who required rescue analgesics during the first 24 h was significantly higher in IM group compared to IM + PCEA group. No significant difference was observed between the groups in incidence of delayed ambulation. Conclusions The combined use of PCEA with IM provided better post-cesarean section analgesia compared to IM alone. Trial registration UMIN-CTR (Registration No. UMIN000032475). Registered 6 May 2018 – Retrospectively registered.en-USAttribution 4.0 InternationalCesarean sectionPostoperative analgesiaIntrathecal morphinePatient-controlled epidural analgesiaArticle