Quality of analgesia after lower third molar surgery: A randomised, double-blind study of levobupivacaine, bupivacaine and lidocaine with epinephrine
Abstract
Background/Aim. Surgical extraction of lower third molars is followed by mild or severe postoperative pain which peaks at maximal intensity in the first 12 hours and has a significant impact on a patient’s postoperative quality of life. The use of long-acting local anaesthetics is a promising strategy to improve postoperative analgesia. The aim of the present study was to investigate analgesic parameters and patient satisfaction after using 0.5% levobupivacaine (Lbup), 0.5% bupivacaine (Bup) and 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:80,000 (Lid + Epi) for an inferior alveolar nerve block following lower third molar surgery. Methods. A total of 102 patients (ASA I) were divided into three groups, each of which received either 3 mL of Lbup, Bup or Lid + Epi. The intensity of postoperative analgesia was measured using a verbal rating scale (VRS). The total amounts of rescue analgesics were recorded on the first and during seven postoperative days. Patients satisfaction was noted using a modified verbal scales. Results. A significantly higher level of postoperative pain was recorded in Lid + Epi group compared to Bup and Lbup groups. No significant differences were seen between Bup and Lbup, but a significant reduction in the need for rescue analgesics was seen postoperatively in both Lbup and Bup (50%) in comparison with Lid + Epi (80%) in the first 24 hours. The same significant trend in rescue analgesic consumption was recorded for seven postoperative days. Patients’ overall satisfaction was significantly lower for Lid + Epi (10%) than for Lbup (56%) and Bup (52%). Conclusion. The use of a new and long-acting local anaesthetic 0.5% levobupivacaine is clinically relevant and effective for an inferior alveolar nerve block and postoperative pain control after third molar surgery. In our study Lbup and Bup controled postoperative pain more efficiently after lower third molar surgery compared to Lid + Epi.
References
Earl P. Patient’s anxieties with third molar surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994; 32(5): 293−7.
Berge TI. Inability to work after surgical removal of mandibular third molars. Acta Odontol Scand 1997; 55(1): 64−9.
Woolf CJ, Salter MW. Neuronal plasticity: Incresing the gain in pain. Science 2000; 288(5472): 1765−8.
Juhl GI, Svensson P, Norholt SE, Jensen TS. Long lasting mechan-ical sensitization following third molar surgery. J Orofac Pain 2006; 20(1): 59−73.
Malamed SF. Clinical Action of Specific Agents. In: Malamed SF, editor. Handbook of Local Anesthesia. 4th ed. St. Louis, Mosby 1997. p. 70.
Sisk AL. Long acting local anesthetics in dentistry. Anesth Prog 1992; 39(3): 53−60.
Brown DL, Ransom DM, Hall JA, Leicht CH, Schroeder DR, Oford KP. Regional anesthesia and local anesthetic-induced systemic toxicity: seizure frequency and accompanying cardiovascular changes. Anesth Analg 1995; 81(2): 321−8.
Kopp SL, Wynd KP, Horlocker TT, Hebl JR, Wilson JL. Regional blockade in patients with history of a seizure disorder. Anesth Analg 2009; 109(1): 272−8.
Marwick PC, Levin AI, Coetzee AR. Recurrnce of cardiotoxicity after lipid rescue from bupivacaine-induced cardiac arrest. An-est Analg 2009; 108(4): 1344−6.
Dudley MH, Fleming SW, Garg U, Edwards JM. Fatality involving complications bupivacaine toxicity and hypersensitivity reac-tion. J Forensic Sci 2011; 56(5): 1376−9.
Valenzuela C, Snyders DJ, Bennett PB, Tamargo J, Hondeghem LM. Stereoselective block of cardiac sodium channels by bupiva-caine in guinea pig ventricular myocytes. Circulation 1995; 92(10): 3014−24.
Valenzuela C, Delpón E, Tamkun MM, Tamargo J, Snyders DJ. Ste-reoselective block of a human cardiac potassium channel (Kv1.5) by bupivacaine enantiomers. Biophys J 1995; 69(2): 418−27.
Chang DH, Ladd LA, Wilson KA, Gelgor L, Mather LE. Tolera-bility of large-dose intravenous levobupivacaine in sheep. Anesth Analg 2000; 91(3): 671−9.
Bardsley H, Gristwood R, Baker H, Watson N, Nimmo W. A com-parison of cardiovascular effects of levobupivacaine and rac-bupivacaine following intravenous administration to healthy volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 46: 245−9.
Cox CR, Checketts MR, Mackenzie N, Scott NB, Bannister J. Com-parison of S (-) – bupivacaine with racemic (RS) – bupivacaine in supraclavicular brachial plexus block. Br J Anaesth 1998; 80(5): 594−8.
Casati A, Chelly JE, Cercherini E, Santosorla R, Nobili F, Grispigni C, et al. Clinical properties of levobupivacaine or racemic bu-pivacaine for sciatic nerve block. J Clin Anesth 2002; 14(2): 111−4.
Liisanantti O, Luukkonen J, Rosenberg PH. High-dose bupiva-caine, levobupivacaine and ropivacaine in axillary brachial plexus block. Acta Anestesiol Scand 2004; 48(5): 601−6.
Novak-Jankovic V, Milan Z, Potocnik I, Stupnik T, Maric S, Stopar-Pintaric T, et al. A prospective, randomized, double-blinded comparison between multimodal thoracic paravertebral bupi-vacaine and levobupivacaine analgesia in patients undergoing lung surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2012; 26(5): 863−7.
Branco FP, Ranali J, Ambrosano GM, Volpato MC. A double-blind comparison of 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 0.5% levobupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine for the inferior alveolar nerve block. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006; 101(4): 442−720.
Bouloux GF, Punnia-Moorthy A. Bupivacaine versus lidocaine for third molar surgery: a double-blind, randomized, crossover study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999; 57(5): 510−4.
Fisher SE, Frame JW, Rout PG, McEntegart DJ. Factors affecting the onset and severity of pain following the surgical removal of unilateral impacted mandibular third molar teeth. Br Dent J 1988; 164(11): 351−4.
Rood JP, Coulthard P, Snowdon AT, Gennery BA. Safety and effi-casy of levobupivacaine for postoperative pain relief after the surgical removal of impacted third molars: a comparison with lignocaine and adrenaline. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002; 40(6): 491−6.
Crincoli V, Di Biseglie MB, Massaro M, Guiliani R, Favia G, Brienza N. Postoperative pain relief after surgical removal of impacted third molars: a single-blind, randomized, controlled study to compare levobupivacaine and mepivacaine. J Orofac Pain 2009; 23(4): 325−9.
Leone S, Di Cianni S, Casati A, Fanelli G. Pharmacology, toxi-cology and clinical use of new long acting local anesthetic, ro-pivacaine and levobupivacaine. Acta Biomed 2008; 79(2): 92−105.
Casati A, Putzu M. Bupivacaine, levobupivacaine and ropiva-caine: are they clinically different? Best Prac Res Clin Anaest 2005;19(2): 247−68.
Foster RH, Markham E. Levobupivacaine: A review of its pharmacology and use as a local anaesthetic. Drugs 2000; 59(3): 551−79.
Eliav E, Graselya SH. Sensory changes in the territory of the lingual and inferior alveolar nerves following lower third molar extraction. Pain 1998; 77(2): 191−9.
Juhl GI, Jensen TS, Svensson P. Central sensitization phenomena after third molar surgery: a quantitative sensory testing study. Eur J Pain 2008; 12(1): 116−27.
Gordon SM, Brahim JS, Dubner R, McCullagh LM, Sang C, Dionne RA. Attenuation of pain in a randomized trial by suppression of peripheral nociceptive activity in the immediate postopera-tive period. Anesth Analg 2002; 95(5): 1351−7.
Ong CK, Lirk P, Seymour RA, Jenkins BJ. The efficacy of preemptive analgesia for acute postoperative pain manage-ment: A meta-analysis. Anesth Analg 2005; 100(3): 757−73
Kim YK, Kim SM, Myoung H. Independent predictors of satis-faction in impacted third molar surgery patients. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2010; 38(3): 274−86.
