Cited by 14Anesthesia and Pain ManagementPain Management and Opioid UseSurgical site infection prevention

Intraoperative local infiltration with ropivacaine 0.5% in women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy and pelvic floor repair: randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Athanasiou, Stavros, Hadzillia, Sophia, Pitsouni, Eleni, Kastanias, Stamatios, Douskos, Athanasios, Valsamidis, Dimitris, Loutradis, Dimitris, Grigoriadis, Themos·2019·European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of infiltration with ropivacaine 0.5% on controlling postoperative pain in women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and pelvic floor repair for prolapse stage > II.Study design This double-blind randomized 1:1 placebo-controlled trial included 59 women. Thirty millilitres of ropivacaine 0.5% or placebo was infiltrated in the round and uterosacral ligaments and in the perineal body. Primary outcomes included postoperative pain intensity at rest and during cough (measured using 10-cm visual analogue scale), and proportion of patients reporting moderate/severe pain. Secondary outcomes included morphine consumption and assessment of nausea, vomiting and sedation. Outcomes were compared between groups at 2, 4, 8 and 24 h postoperatively. Statistical (p-values) and clinical significance {effect size [Cliff's delta] [95% confidence interval (CI)] and odds ratio (95% CI)} of results were assessed. Outcomes are presented as median (min-max) and n (%).Results Pain intensity was lower after ropivacaine infiltration compared with placebo at 2 and 4 h postoperatively at rest [0.5 (0.1-7.2) vs 1.1 (0.2-9.3) (p = 0.007) and 1.3 (0.1-5.1) vs 3.1 (0.1-9.8) (p = 0.02), respectively] and during cough [0.9 (0.1-8.9) vs 1.9 (0.1-10) (p = 0.03) and 1.6 (0.1-4.7) vs 3.2 (0.3-9.6) (p = 0.009), respectively]. The proportion of patients with moderate/severe pain was significantly less after ropivacaine infiltration compared with placebo at 2, 4 and 8 h postoperatively at rest [4% vs 32% (p = 0.03), 16% vs 44% (p = 0.03) and 12% vs 40% (p = 0.02), respectively] and during cough [8% vs 40% (p = 0.008), 16% vs 52% (p = 0.007) and 20% vs 52% (p = 0.02), respectively]. Patients in the ropivacaine group consumed significantly less morphine compared with those in the placebo group up to 24 h postoperatively [4 (0-17) mg vs 7 (0-19) mg (p = 0.02)]. The incidence of nausea and vomiting was 3 (12%) and 0-2 (0-8%) in the ropivacaine group, compared with 1-7 (4-28%) and 1-4 (4-16%) in the placebo group. No significant difference was found in the proportion of patients using morphine, proportion of patients reporting the presence of nausea/vomiting, and the intensity of sedation between the groups (all p > 0.05).Conclusion Local infiltration with ropivacaine 0.5% significantly reduces postoperative pain and morphine consumption in patients undergoing VH and pelvic floor repair for advanced pelvic organ prolapse.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.03.016

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Five trials with a total of 476 women evaluated POP surgery with short-acting versus long-acting bupivacaine.

    “POP surgery with short‐acting versus long‐acting bupivacaine: five trials with a total of 476 women (Athanasiou 2019; Dengler 2021; Evans 2019; Jones 2018; Yeung 2018).”

    From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Athanasiou 2019

  • Two trials reported on postoperative pain (Athanasiou 2019; Fernandez-Gonzalez 2019).

    “Two trials reported on postoperative pain (Athanasiou 2019; Fernandez‐Gonzalez 2019).”

    From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Athanasiou 2019

  • There may be no clinically relevant difference in operating times between women who had short-acting versus long-acting bupivacaine.

    “Based on evidence from a single trial (Athanasiou 2019), there may be no clinically relevant difference in operating times between women who had short‐acting versus long‐acting bupivacaine (MD 8.00, 95% CI ‐248.51 to 264.51; 1 study, 64 women; low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 6.2).”

    From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Athanasiou 2019

  • There may be no clinically relevant difference in estimated blood loss between women who had short-acting versus long-acting bupivacaine.

    “Based on evidence from a single trial (Athanasiou 2019), there may be no clinically relevant difference in estimated blood loss between women who had short‐acting versus long‐acting bupivacaine (MD 0.00, 95% CI ‐111.50 to 111.50; 1 study, 64 women; low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 6.2).”

    From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Athanasiou 2019

  • There may be no clinically relevant difference in the number of women using narcotics 24 hours postoperatively between those who had short-acting versus long-acting bupivacaine.

    “Based on evidence from a single trial (Athanasiou 2019), there may be no clinically relevant difference in the number of women using narcotics 24 hours postoperatively between those who had short‐acting versus long‐acting bupivacaine (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.99; 1 study, 50 women; low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 6.1).”

    From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Athanasiou 2019

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 29 · Cited by 14

Authors
Athanasiou, S., Hadzillia, S., Pitsouni, E., Kastanias, S., Douskos, A., Valsamidis, D., Loutradis, D., & Grigoriadis, T.
Affiliations
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
  • Alexandra Hospital (GR)
Corresponding author
Athanasiou, Stavros
Venue
European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
236
Pages
154-159
ISSN
  • 0028-2243 (ISSN-L)
  • 0301-2115
OpenAlex
W2922878781
Cited by
14
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical site infection prevention
Keywords
ropivacaine, local infiltration analgesia, vaginal hysterectomy, pelvic floor reconstruction, uterosacral ligament, round ligament, perineal body, postoperative pain, cough pain, morphine consumption, pelvic organ prolapse, women, regional anesthesia, postoperative nausea and vomiting, sedation, opioid-sparing analgesia
MeSH terms
Ropivacaine, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anesthetics, Local, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Hysterectomy, Vaginal, Middle Aged, Postoperative Pain, Treatment Outcome, Pelvic Floor, Plastic Surgery Procedures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review