Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 1998
Comparative StudyComparison of the three-in-one and fascia iliaca compartment blocks in adults: clinical and radiographic analysis.
The 3-in-1 (Group 1) and fascia iliaca compartment (Group 2) blocks, two single-injection, anterior approach procedures used to simultaneously block the femoral, obturator, and lateral femoral cutaneous (LFC) nerves, were compared in 100 adults after lower limb surgery. Pain control, sensory and motor blockades, and radiographically visualized spread of local anesthetic solution were studied prospectively. Both approaches provided efficient pain control using 30 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 0.5% bupivacaine and 5 mL of contrast media (iopamidol). Complete lumbar plexus blockade was achieved in 18 (38%) Group 1 and 17 (34%) Group 2 patients (n = 50 patients per group). Sensory block of the femoral, obturator, genitofemoral, and LFC nerves was obtained in 90% and 88%, 52% and 38%, 38% and 34%, and 62% and 90% of the patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P < 0.05). Sensory LFC blockade was obtained more rapidly for the patients in Group 2 (P < 0.05). Concurrent internal and external spread of the local anesthetic solution under the fascia iliaca and between the iliacus and psoas muscles was noted in 62 of the 92 block procedures analyzed radiographically. Isolated external spreads under the fascia iliaca and over the iliacus muscle were noted in 10% and 36% of the patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P < 0.05). The local anesthetic solution reached the lumbar plexus in only five radiographs. We conclude that the fascia iliaca compartment block is more effective than the 3-in-1 block in producing simultaneous blockade of the LFC and femoral nerves in adults. After both procedures, blockade was obtained primarily by the spread of local anesthetic under the fascia iliaca and only rarely by contact with the lumbar plexus. ⋯ In adults, the two anterior approaches, 3-in-1 and fascia iliaca compartment blocks, provide effective postoperative analgesia. The fascia iliaca compartment technique provides faster and more consistent simultaneous blockade of the lateral femoral cutaneous and femoral nerves. Sensory block is caused by the spread of local anesthetic solution under the fascia iliaca and only rarely to the lumbar plexus.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialPremedication with fentanyl and midazolam decreases the reliability of intravenous lidocaine test dose.
This study was performed to determine whether premedication with midazolam and fentanyl prevents reliable detection of an i.v. lidocaine test dose. Thirty ASA physical status I or II patients received either 3 mL of saline or 1.5 mg of midazolam (1.5 mL) plus 75 microg of fentanyl (1.5 mL) i.v. in a randomized, double-blind fashion. Five minutes later, lidocaine 1 mg/kg was injected i.v. At 1.5 min before and every minute after lidocaine administration, each subject was questioned regarding the presence of four symptoms of systemic lidocaine toxicity. Any new tinnitus, perioral numbness, metallic taste, or light-headedness within 5 min after lidocaine administration was considered a positive response. All 15 patients in the saline group (100% sensitivity) had a positive response to i.v. lidocaine, but only 9 of 15 patients in the sedation group had a positive response (60% sensitivity; P = 0.017). We conclude that midazolam and fentanyl premedication decreases the reliability of subjective detection of i.v. lidocaine. ⋯ Anesthesiologists often rely on subjective symptoms to prevent local anesthetic toxicity while performing regional anesthesia. Sedatives are often administered during the administration of regional anesthesia. This study demonstrates that typical sedation decreases the reliability of detection of local anesthetic toxicity by subjective symptoms.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of patient-controlled analgesia with lornoxicam versus morphine in patients undergoing lumbar disk surgery.
The analgesic efficacy and tolerability of lornoxicam (Xefo; Nycomed Pharma A/S, Roskilde, Denmark), a new nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug, was compared with that of morphine in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study of 96 patients with at least moderate pain after lumbar microsurgical discectomy. Both drugs were administered i.v. via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for up to 24 h postoperatively. Efficacy was assessed by comparing mean hourly pain intensity differences, mean hourly pain relief, and total pain relief (TOTPAR) values derived from a 5-point verbal rating scores of pain intensity and pain relief at several time points over 24 h. Of 79 patients included in a per-protocol analysis, statistically significant equivalence of lornoxicam and morphine was shown by TOTPAR values of 31.6 and 28.9, respectively (P = 0.048). Trends toward slightly faster onset of analgesia with morphine and slightly greater PCA demands with lornoxicam were observed initially, which may partly have been due to a higher baseline pain intensity in the lornoxicam group. Lornoxicam caused fewer adverse events than morphine (21.7% vs 38.0% of patients, respectively), most of which were mild or moderate in severity. These results suggest that lornoxicam is an alternative to morphine when administered by PCA for the treatment of moderate to severe postoperative pain. ⋯ After surgery for lumbar disk disease, patients obtained statistically equivalent pain relief with lornoxicam and morphine when administered by patient-controlled analgesia. However, lornoxicam was associated with a lower incidence of adverse events. This study suggests that lornoxicam provides an alternative to morphine for the treatment of postoperative pain.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe effect of epinephrine on small-dose hyperbaric bupivacaine spinal anesthesia: clinical implications for ambulatory surgery.
The effect of adding epinephrine to small doses of spinal bupivacaine on the duration of sensory motor block has not been carefully investigated. Twelve volunteers underwent hyperbaric bupivacaine spinal anesthesia (7.5 mg) with and without epinephrine (0.2 mg) in a randomized, double-blind, cross-over fashion. Sensory block was assessed with pinprick, transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) equivalent to surgical stimulation (at umbilicus, pubis, knee, and ankle), and tolerance of a pneumatic thigh tourniquet. Motor block was assessed with isometric force dynamometry. Discharge criteria were defined as return of pinprick sensation to dermatome S2, ability to ambulate, and ability to urinate. Extent of sensory block to pinprick over time was unaffected by the addition of epinephrine. However, epinephrine prolonged tolerance of TES at the pubis, knee, and ankle (33-48 min, P < 0.05) and of thigh tourniquet (30 min, P < 0.01). Motor block was prolonged by epinephrine at the quadriceps and gastrocnemius muscles (by 23 and 51 min, respectively, P < 0.002). Achievement of discharge criteria was prolonged by 48 min by the addition of epinephrine (P < 0.01). Thus, epinephrine may prolong surgical anesthesia for lower abdominal and lower extremity surgery and delay time until patients achieve discharge criteria. ⋯ Using a cross-over study design, 12 volunteers underwent bupivacaine spinal anesthesia with and without epinephrine. This study suggests that adding epinephrine to bupivacaine may prolong surgical anesthesia and also delay patients' discharge.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialPatient-controlled versus anesthesiologist-controlled conscious sedation with propofol for dental treatment in anxious patients.
In a randomized, cross-over study, we prospectively compared the efficacy and quality of two methods to achieve conscious sedation with propofol in 11 unpremedicated, anxious dental patients. Each patient underwent two dental procedures, one that was conducted under target-controlled infusion (TCI) by the anesthesiologist (ACS), and the other that used patient-controlled sedation (PCS). The initial target concentration in the ACS mode was 2.5 microg/mL, which was manipulated in both directions until the desired clinical end point was achieved. In the PCS mode, a 4-mg bolus of propofol (10 mg/mL) was delivered at each activation of the machine, infused over 7 s without a lockout interval. The anxious dental patients could induce and maintain conscious sedation with the PCS settings. The mean (range) venous blood propofol concentrations were not significantly different with either mode: ACS 1.8 (0.8-2.7) microg/mL and PCS 1.2 (0.2-2.5) microg/mL. The level of patient satisfaction, quality of sedation, and treatability were not different for either mode of sedation. The intensity of amnesia for intraoperative events was related to the blood concentrations achieved. In the ACS mode, one patient became unresponsive (sedation level 4) immediately after the start of sedation. No adverse cardiorespiratory effects resulted from either mode of propofol sedation. Five patients expressed a strong preference for PCS, and three would prefer ACS in the future. The results of the present study suggest that with these PCS settings, a satisfactory level of conscious sedation and a high level of patient satisfaction was achieved. ⋯ In a randomized, cross-over study, the blood propofol concentrations necessary to achieve conscious sedation in anxious dental patients using a target-controlled infusion conducted by the anesthesiologist versus patient-controlled sedation were not different. With the patient-controlled sedation settings, a satisfactory level of conscious sedation and a high level of patient satisfaction were achieved.