Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Feb 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialCombination of intrathecal sufentanil 10 mug plus bupivacaine 2.5 mg for labor analgesia: is half the dose enough?
This controlled, double-blinded, prospective trial of 42 parturients in early labor was conducted to determine whether halving the total amount of intrathecal (i.t.) sufentanil and bupivacaine reduced the incidence of systemic hypotension while providing adequate analgesia with minimal lower limb motor block. Combined spinal-epidural analgesia (CSE) was instituted; Group A (n = 21) received a total of 10 microg of sulfentanil plus 2.5 mg of bupivacaine, whereas Group B (n = 21) received half that dose. Compared with Group B, Group A had a higher incidence of hypotension (nine parturients in Group A, two in Group B; P < 0.05), a greater degree of motor block (P < 0.05), and a higher incidence of sedation (nine parturients in Group A were sedated, one in Group B; P < 0.01). Group B had higher pain scores for the first 5 min (P < 0.05) and a lower level of sensory blockade (median of T7 in Group B compared with T4 in Group A; P < 0.01). We conclude that halving the total amount of i.t. 10 microg of sufentanil plus 2.5 mg of bupivacaine is a suitable option for CSE in labor because it reduces the incidence of some side effects, such as hypotension and maternal sedation, without compromising overall high maternal satisfaction. ⋯ We showed that adequate labor pain relief could be provided by halving the recommended dose of 10 microg of intrathecal sufentanil plus 2.5 mg of bupivacaine. The larger dose, however, produced faster pain relief, which lasted longer than the reduced dose. The mother and baby were not adversely affected with either dose.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Feb 1999
Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical TrialEpidural steroids for treating "failed back surgery syndrome": is fluoroscopy really necessary?
Epidural steroids are commonly administered in the treatment of "failed back surgery syndrome." Because patient response is dependent on accurate steroid placement, fluoroscopic guidance has been advocated. However, because of ever-increasing medical expenditures, the cost-benefit of routine fluoroscopy should be critically evaluated. Therefore, 50 patients were enrolled into this institutional review board-approved, prospective, controlled, single-blinded study. At a predetermined intervertebral level, the epidural space was identified using an air loss of resistance technique. Thereafter, an epidural catheter was inserted 2 cm through the epidural needle. To determine the accuracy of the clinical placement, contrast medium was administered through the epidural catheter; antero-posterior and lateral lumbar spine radiographs were then obtained. The number of attempts required to successfully locate the epidural space, the reliability of the air loss of resistance technique in indicating successful epidural penetration in failed back surgery syndrome, the ability of the clinician to accurately predict the intervertebral space at which the epidural injection was performed, and the spread of contrast medium within the epidural space were recorded. A total of 48 epidurograms were performed. The number of attempts to successfully enter the epidural space was 2 +/- 1. In 44 cases, the radiological studies confirmed the clinical impression that the epidural space had been successfully identified. In three patients, the epidural catheter was in the paravertebral tissue. One myelogram was recorded. In 25 patients, the epidural catheter did not pass through the predetermined intervertebral space. In 35 cases, the contrast medium did not reach the level of pathology. ⋯ The clinical sign of loss of resistance is a reliable indicator of epidural space penetration in most cases of "failed back surgery syndrome." However, surface anatomy is unreliable and may result in inaccurate steroid placement. Finally, despite accurate placement, the depot-steroid solution will spread to reach the level of pathology in only 26% of cases.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Feb 1999
Neurologic complications after placement of cerebrospinal fluid drainage catheters and needles in anesthetized patients: implications for regional anesthesia. Mayo Perioperative Outcomes Group.
Subarachnoid or epidural needle placement in an anesthetized patient is controversial because general anesthesia and muscle relaxation may mask neural trauma. However, placement of a needle or catheter in the subarachnoid space for the purpose of cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) drainage is frequently performed in anesthetized patients undergoing neurosurgery. The records from 530 consecutive transsphenoidal surgeries performed with lumbar CSF drainage were reviewed to determine the types of neurologic complications attributable to spinal drainage and their rates of occurrence. All patients were anesthetized during CSF drain placement. A 19-gauge malleable needle was placed in 473 (89%) patients. Subarachnoid catheters (20- or 16-gauge catheters placed via 18- or 14-gauge epidural needles, respectively) were placed in 17 (3%) patients. In 40 (8%) patients, the type of drain was unspecified. No new neurologic deficits attributable to spinal drain insertion were detected in the immediate postoperative period or within 1 yr of surgery. Thirteen patients developed postdural puncture headache (2.5%, exact 95% confidence interval 1.3%-4.2%); seven required epidural blood patch (1.3%, 0.5%-2.7%). The low incidence (0%, 0.0%-0.7%) of neurologic injury from spinal drain insertion in anesthetized patients from this study is similar to the incidence of neurologic complications historically reported for both CSF drain insertion and spinal anesthesia. ⋯ The performance of regional anesthesia in an anesthetized patient is controversial due to the possibility of unrecognized nerve injury. We report no cases of nerve injury caused by the placement of cerebrospinal fluid drainage needles and catheters in 530 anesthetized patients undergoing neurosurgery.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Feb 1999
Comparative StudyThe effects of clonidine and dexmedetomidine on human neutrophil functions.
Neutrophil functions are inhibited by various anesthetics. Clonidine and dexmedetomidine, alpha2-agonists, are often used as adjuncts to anesthesia. Thus, we conducted the current study to determine the effect of clonidine, dexmedetomidine, and xylazine at clinically (or veterinary anesthetically) relevant concentrations (and 10 and 100 times these concentrations) on several aspects of human neutrophil functions using an in vitro system. The three alpha2-agonists had no effects on chemotaxis, phagocytosis, or superoxide anion (O2-) production of neutrophils, except that the highest concentration of clonidine inhibited chemotaxis. Increases in intracellular calcium concentrations in neutrophils stimulated by chemotaxin were not influenced by clonidine, dexmedetomidine, or xylazine. Unchanged calcium concentrations may contribute to failure to modulate the neutrophil functions. In addition, these drugs did not scavenge O2- generated by the cell-free (xanthine-xanthine oxidase) system. This is the first report concerning the effect of clonidine or dexmedetomidine on human neutrophil functions. Our findings suggest that we may not have to take extra precautions in using the alpha2-agonists in patients with infection, but that we cannot expect these drugs to be prophylaxis against autotissue injuries whose pathogenesis includes activation of neutrophils. ⋯ Neutrophils are involved in the antibacterial host defense system and autotissue injury. We found that clinically relevant concentrations of clonidine and dexmedetomidine do not affect chemotaxis, phagocytosis, or superoxide production by human neutrophils. These findings indicate that it may not be necessary to take special care in using alpha2-agonists in patients with infection, sepsis, or systemic inflammation.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Feb 1999
Comparative StudyAn examination of the interactions between the antinociceptive effects of morphine and various mu-opioids: the role of intrinsic efficacy and stimulus intensity.
We examined the effects of several opioids that vary in intrinsic efficacy at the mu-opioid receptor alone and in combination with morphine in a rat warm water tail withdrawal procedure using 50 degrees C and 52 degrees C water (i.e., low- and high-stimulus intensities). Morphine, levorphanol, dezocine, and buprenorphine produced dose-dependent increases in antinociception using both stimulus intensities. Butorphanol produced maximal levels of antinociception at the low, but not at the high, stimulus intensity, whereas nalbuphine failed to produce antinociception at either stimulus intensity. For cases in which butorphanol and nalbuphine failed to produce antinociception alone, these opioids dose-dependently antagonized the effects of morphine. When levorphanol, dezocine, and buprenorphine were combined with morphine, there was a dose-dependent enhancement of morphine's effects. Similar effects were obtained at the low-stimulus intensity when butorphanol was administered with morphine. In most cases, the effects of these combinations could be predicted by summating the effects of the drugs when administered alone. These results indicate that the level of antinociception produced by an opioid is dependent on the intrinsic efficacy of the drug and the stimulus intensity. Furthermore, the level of antinociception produced by the opioid, not necessarily the opioids' intrinsic efficacy, determines the type of interaction among opioids. ⋯ Compared with high-efficacy opioids, lower efficacy opioids produce lower levels of pain relief, especially in situations of moderate to severe pain. When opioids are given in combination, the effects can only be predicted on the basis of the antinociception obtained when the drugs are administered alone.