Why the study?
Does continuous epidural infusion of bupivacaine provide adequate analgesia for pregnancy-associated intercostal neuralgia?
Does continuous epidural infusion of bupivacaine provide adequate analgesia for pregnancy-associated intercostal neuralgia?
A titrated continuous epidural infusion of bupivacaine can provide safe and effective long-term analgesia for severe pregnancy-associated intercostal neuralgia.
May warrant consideration for refractory pregnancy-associated intercostal neuralgia; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
Intercostal neuralgia is one of many possible neurological disorders associated with pregnancy. A woman presented in the 34th week of her 4th pregnancy with progressing right-sided pain and hypoesthesia in the ribs, right upper quadrant of the abdomen, and mid-thoracic area of her back. With a clinical diagnosis of pregnancy-related intercostal neuralgia, we inserted an epidural catheter at T8 for ambulatory pain management. A continuous infusion of bupivacaine was titrated by concentration and rate until adequate analgesia was obtained. The final effective dose consisted of 0.125% bupivacaine at 6 ml/h with a patient-controlled bolus dose of 2 ml every 30 min as needed (4-6 boluses per 24-h period). This allowed the patient to continue to work full-time and perform daily activities with minimal discomfort. The epidural infusion was continued until the patient went into spontaneous labor 28 days after the initial clinical visit. A full-term infant was delivered without incident. No major complications occurred such as local anesthetic toxicity, hypotension, motor weakness, or infection. Minor complications included disconnection of the catheter cap and accidental dislodgment, which required placement of a second epidural catheter. For this patient, an appropriately placed chronic epidural catheter and a titrated continuous infusion of bupivacaine provided adequate and safe analgesia for pregnancy-associated intercostal neuralgia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Samlaska et al. (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: