• H H Le Truong, M Girard, P Drolet, Y Grenier, C Boucher, and L Bergeron.
• Département d'anesthésie-réanimation, Hĵpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont and Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada.
• Can J Anaesth. 2001 May 1;48(5):470-3.

PurposeTo compare spinal procaine to spinal lidocaine with regard to their main clinical characteristics and incidence of transient radicular irritation (TRI).MethodsIn this randomized, double-blind, prospective study, patients (two groups, n=30 each) received either 100 mg of lidocaine 5% in 7.5% glucose (Group L) or 100 mg of procaine 10% diluted with 1 ml cerebrospinal fluid (Group P). After spinal anesthesia, segmental level of sensory block was assessed by pinprick. Blood pressure and the height of the block were noted each minute for the first ten minutes, then every three minutes for the next 35 min and finally every five minutes until regression of the block to L4. Motor blockade was evaluated using the Bromage scale. To evaluate the presence of TRI, each patient was questioned 48 hr after surgery.ResultsTime to highest sensory level and to maximum number of segments blocked showed no difference between groups. Mean time for sensory regression to T10 and for regression of the motor block were shorter in Group P. Eighty minutes following injection, sensory levels were lower in Group P. Five patients had inadequate surgical anesthesia in Group P and only one in Group L. No patient in Group P had TRI (95% CI 10-12%) while eight (27%) in Group L did (95% CI 12-46%).ConclusionsProcaine 10% was associated with a clinical failure rate of 14.2%. This characteristic must be balanced against an absence of TRI, which occurs more frequently with the use of lidocaine 5%.

13 keywords...

hide…