Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Feb 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialAssessment of the level of sensory block after subarachnoid anesthesia using a pressure palpator.
In a cross-over study, we compared two methods of assessing the level of sensory block during subarachnoid anesthesia: the traditional pinprick sensation or a novel pressure palpator exerting a pressure of 650 g. Fifty patients scheduled for transurethral surgery under subarachnoid anesthesia were randomly assigned to be tested for spread of sensory block. In Group 1, the pressure palpator was followed by pinprick; in Group 2, the reverse sequence was used. Evaluation was performed 15 and 25 min after the subarachnoid injection of 2 mL of 5% lidocaine hyperbaric solution. In Group 1, the level of sensory block assessed with the pressure palpator was 1.7 +/- 3.2 cm (0.5 +/- 1.2 dermatomes) higher than that with the pinprick at 15 min, and 2.2 +/- 3.4 cm (0.6 +/- 1.0 dermatomes) higher than that with the pinprick 25 min after the block. In Group 2, the difference was accentuated. The level of sensory block assessed by pinprick 15 min after subarachnoid lidocaine was 5.7 +/- 4.8 cm (1.2 +/- 0.9 dermatomes) lower than the level with the pressure palpator, and 4.2 +/- 3.3 cm (0.9 +/- 0.6 dermatomes) lower than that with the pressure palpator at 25 min. In all instances, the pressure palpator gave a significantly higher assessment than the pinprick. We conclude that the pressure palpator, when preceded by the pinprick test, is associated with an increased threshold. This method may be useful in assessing the sensory block produced by subarachnoid anesthesia. ⋯ A novel pressure palpator that maintains the integrity of the epidermis was used to assess the level of sensory block after subarachnoid anesthesia and was compared with the standard method of the pinprick sensation. This method assessed the block consistently higher than the pinprick method, but it may have advantages as a noninvasive sensory test.
-
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
Comparative Study Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical TrialDetermination of an effective dose of intrathecal morphine for pain relief after cesarean delivery.
Very small doses of intrathecal (i.t.) morphine (25-200 microg) have been used in an effort to provide effective postoperative pain relief while minimizing side effects after cesarean delivery. We performed a double-blinded study in 40 patients presenting for elective cesarean delivery in which i.t. morphine was administered along with oral hydrocodone/acetaminophen and other medications commonly administered after cesarean delivery. We administered i.t. morphine by up-down sequential allocation of doses. For the purposes of this study, adequate postoperative analgesia was defined as comfort not requiring i.v. morphine for 12 h after spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine, fentanyl, and morphine. In addition, a time and cost comparison was performed for study patients receiving intrathecal morphine compared with a historical group of patients receiving patient-controlled analgesia with i.v. morphine. We were unable to determine with meaningful precision a dose of i.t. morphine to provide analgesia in this context. However, very small doses of i.t. morphine combined with oral hydrocodone/acetaminophen and other medications commonly prescribed after cesarean delivery provided postoperative pain relief with no more time commitment than patient-controlled analgesia (148 +/- 61 vs 150 +/- 57 min) and with significantly less acquisition cost ($15.13 +/- $4.40 vs $34.64 +/- $15.55). ⋯ When used along with oral analgesics, very small doses of spinal morphine provide adequate pain relief after cesarean delivery. Spinal anesthetics, oral analgesics, and other medications commonly prescribed to treat side effects after cesarean delivery contribute significantly to this analgesia. When small doses of spinal morphine are used in this setting, they provide adequate analgesia and patient satisfaction that is time- and cost-effective.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Feb 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialSomatosensory evoked potential monitoring used to compare the effect of three asymmetric sternal retractors on brachial plexus function.
We compared the effect of three different asymmetric sternal retractors on brachial plexus dysfunction using intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs). We studied 60 patients undergoing coronary bypass and internal mammary harvest. Assessment of brachial plexus function was performed pre- and postoperatively. Patients were assigned the use of a Pittman (MN Scientific Instruments Inc., Minneapolis, MN), Rultract (Rultract Inc., Cleveland, OH), or Delacroix-Chevalier (Delacroix-Chevalier, Paris, France) asymmetric sternal retractor for internal mammary exposure. SSEP changes from baseline during asymmetric retractor use and removal were determined, and average changes were compared among the retractor groups. Patient demographics and baseline SSEP values were similar. Fewer patients in the Delacroix-Chevalier group had decreases in SSEP amplitudes after retractor placement. Of the patients in the Rultract and Pittman groups, 45% and 25%, respectively, had amplitude decreases of >50%, compared with only 5% of the Delacroix-Chevalier patients. Three patients in both the Pittman and Rultract groups and one patient in the Delacroix-Chevalier group suffered brachial plexus symptoms postoperatively. We conclude that the Delacroix-Chevalier retractor is associated with less neurophysiologic evidence of brachial plexus dysfunction during asymmetric sternal retraction compared with either the Pittman or Rultract sternal retractors. ⋯ We used somatosensory evoked potentials to assess the effect of several different asymmetric sternal retractors on brachial plexus dysfunction and to determine which produced the least evidence of nerve damage during surgical exposure of the internal mammary artery.
-
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.