Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialTramadol added to mepivacaine prolongs the duration of an axillary brachial plexus blockade.
Tramadol is an analgesic drug that is antagonized by alpha2-adrenoceptor antagonists, as well as opioid antagonists. We hypothesized that tramadol might produce effects on an axillary brachial plexus blockade similar to those of clonidine. We designed a prospective, controlled, double-blinded study to assess the impact of tramadol added to mepivacaine on the duration of an axillary brachial plexus blockade. After institutional approval and informed consent, 60 patients (ASA physical status I or II) scheduled for forearm and hand surgery after trauma under brachial plexus anesthesia were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 40 mL of mepivacaine 1% with 2 mL of isotonic sodium chloride solution (Group A, n = 20); 40 mL of mepivacaine 1% with 100 mg of tramadol (Group B, n = 20); or 40 mL of mepivacaine 1% with 2 mL of isotonic sodium chloride solution and 100 mg of tramadol i.v. (Group C, n = 20). Sensory block, motor block, and hemodynamics were recorded before and 5, 10, 30, 60, 120, 180, and 360 min after local anesthetic injection. Duration of sensory and motor block was significantly longer (P < 0.01; P < 0.05) in Group B (299 +/- 84 and 259 +/- 76 min) than in Group A (194 +/- 35 and 181 +/- 24 min) and Group C (187 +/- 35 and 179 +/- 16 min). There was no difference in onset of sensory and motor blockade among groups. Hemodynamics remained unchanged in all patients throughout the study period. We conclude that the addition of tramadol prolongs the duration of brachial plexus block without side effects. Tramadol may be an alternative to epinephrine or clonidine as an adjuvant to local anesthesia for an axillary block. ⋯ This study demonstrates that the admixture of 100 mg of tramadol with mepivacaine 1% for brachial plexus block provides a pronounced prolongation of blockade without side effects. Our data support a specific analgesic effect of tramadol on peripheral nerves.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe effects of three graded doses of meperidine for spinal anesthesia in African men.
The intrathecal injection of 0.7-1 mg/kg meperidine provides spinal anesthesia of only short duration. In this study, we investigated the effects of three different doses of meperidine for spinal anesthesia on the duration and level of sensory block and the incidence of side effects. Forty-five African men were randomly allocated to receive one of three doses of intrathecal meperidine: Group A = 1.2 mg/kg, Group B = 1.5 mg/kg, and Group C = 1.8 mg/kg. The duration of sensory block was significantly longer after 1.5 mg/kg compared with 1.2 mg/kg meperidine (112 +/- 19 vs 79 +/- 27 min; P = 0.001). Increasing the dose to 1.8 mg/kg did not further increase the duration of block. The level and the onset of the block were not affected by the dose. Common side effects were fatigue (27%), pruritus (20%), and nausea (7%). Seven patients had respiratory depression and seven had a decrease of systolic arterial blood pressure (SAP) >30% from baseline. There was no difference in the incidence of any side effect among groups. Respiratory depression and decreases in SAP were observed 5-50 min after meperidine injection. Twenty-two patients had no pain after the sensory block had terminated. We conclude that increasing the dose of meperidine from 1.2 to 1.5 mg/kg increased the duration, but not the level, of sensory block without an increase in side effects. ⋯ Intrathecal meperidine 1 mg/kg provides surgical anesthesia for only 40-90 min. We investigated the effects of three larger doses of meperidine in 45 African men. The 1.5 and 1.8 mg/kg doses provide a longer duration of anesthesia compared with 1.2 mg/kg. Nausea, pruritus, and respiratory depression were common in all dose groups. We conclude that increasing the dose of meperidine from 1.2 to 1.5 mg/kg increased the duration, but not the level, of sensory block without an increase in side effects.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialComparison of sevoflurane with propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion in adults.
We performed a prospective, randomized, controlled trial to compare the quality and ease of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion after either rapid inhaled sevoflurane or i.v. propofol induction of anesthesia. Seventy-six unpremedicated ASA physical status I or II patients were anesthetized with either a single vital capacity breath of sevoflurane 8% or i.v. propofol 3 mg/kg, which produced equally rapid loss of consciousness (40.5 +/- 13.9 vs 37.7 +/- 9.9 s; P > 0.05). The LMA was inserted more rapidly in patients in the propofol group (74 +/- 29 vs 127 +/- 35 s; P < 0.01) and required fewer attempts (1.2 vs 1.6; P < 0.05) than the sevoflurane group. There was a greater incidence of initially impossible mouth opening in the sevoflurane group (45% vs 21%; P < 0.05). Once mouth opening was possible, the degree of attenuation of laryngeal reflexes was similar. The overall incidence of complications related to LMA insertion, especially apnea (32% vs 0%; P < 0.01), was more frequent in the propofol group (82% vs 26%; P < 0.01). There were four failures of LMA insertion in the propofol group and none in the sevoflurane group. Both groups had stable hemodynamic profiles and good patient satisfaction. We conclude that sevoflurane vital capacity breath induction compares favorably with i.v. propofol induction for LMA insertion in adults. However, prolonged jaw tightness after the sevoflurane induction of anesthesia may delay LMA insertion. ⋯ In this randomized, controlled trial, we compared the ease of insertion of the laryngeal mask airway in adults after induction of anesthesia with either a sevoflurane vital capacity breath technique or propofol i.v.. We conclude that sevoflurane compares favorably with propofol, although prolonged jaw tightness may delay laryngeal mask airway insertion.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe influence of head and neck position on oropharyngeal leak pressure and cuff position with the flexible and the standard laryngeal mask airway.
We conducted a randomized, cross-over study of 20 paralyzed anesthetized adult patients to test the hypothesis that oropharyngeal leak pressure and cuff position (assessed fiberoptically) vary with head and neck position for the flexible (FLMA) and standard laryngeal mask airway (LMA). Both devices were inserted into each patient in random order. Oropharyngeal leak pressure and fiberoptic position (including degree of rotation) were documented in four head and neck positions (neutral first, then flexion, then extension and rotation in random order) for each device. The size 5 was used for all patients, and the intracuff pressure was set at 60 cm H2O in the neutral position. All airway devices were inserted at the first attempt. Oropharyngeal leak pressure was similar for the FLMA and LMA in the neutral (22 vs 21 cm H2O), flexed (26 vs 26 cm H2O), and extended positions (19 vs 18 cm H2O) but was slightly higher for the LMA when the head was rotated (19 vs 22 cm H2O; P = 0.04). Compared with the neutral position, oropharyngeal leak pressure for the LMA was higher with flexion (26 vs 21 cm H2O; P = 0.0004) and lower with extension (18 vs 21 cm H2O; P = 0.03) but similar with rotation. Compared with the neutral position, oropharyngeal leak pressure for the FLMA was higher with flexion (26 vs 22 cm H2O; P = 0.0001) and lower with extension (19 vs 22 cm H2O; P = 0.03) and rotation (19 vs 22 cm H2O; P = 0.03). The difference in oropharyngeal leak pressure between flexion and extension was 7 and 8 cm H2O for the FLMA and LMA, respectively. Fiberoptic position was similar between devices and was unchanged by head and neck position. Rotation was not detected fiberoptically. We conclude that there are small changes in oropharyngeal leak pressure but no changes in cuff position in different head and neck positions for the FLMA and LMA. Oropharyngeal leak pressure may be improved by head and neck flexion and by avoiding extension. ⋯ There are small changes in oropharyngeal leak pressure but no changes in cuff position in different head and neck positions for the flexible and standard laryngeal mask airways. Oropharyngeal leak pressure may be improved by head and neck flexion and by avoiding extension.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialDo laryngeal mask airway devices attenuate liquid flow between the esophagus and pharynx? A randomized, controlled cadaver study.
In this randomized, controlled cadaver study, we tested the hypothesis that the standard laryngeal mask airway (LMA) and flexible laryngeal mask airway (FLMA) attenuate liquid flow between the esophagus and pharynx. Fifty fresh cadavers were studied in four LMA groups. Ten female cadavers had a size 4 LMA and 10 had a size 4 FLMA; 10 male cadavers had a size 5 LMA and 10 had a size 5 FLMA; 5 male and 5 female cadavers functioned as controls. The chest was opened, and the infusion set of a pressure-controlled, continuous flow pump was inserted into the esophagus and ligated into place. Esophageal pressure was increased in 2-cm H2O increments. Regurgitation pressure was the esophageal pressure at which fluid was first seen with a fiberoptic scope in the hypopharynx (control group) and above the cuff or within the bowl (LMA groups). This was performed in the LMA groups at 0-40 mL cuff volume in 10-mL increments. Mean (95% confidence interval) regurgitation pressure for the control group was 7 (6-8) cm H2O and for the LMA groups combined was 19 (17-20) cm H2O at 0 mL cuff volume, 47 (41-52) cm H2O at 10 mL, 51 (44-55) cm H2O at 20 mL, 52 (45-56) cm H2O at 30 mL, and 52 (45-55) cm H2O at 40 mL. The increase in regurgitation pressure with increasing cuff volume from 0 to 10 mL was statistically significant (P < 0.0001). Regurgitation pressure was higher for the LMA groups at all cuff volumes compared with the control group (P < 0.0001). There were no differences in regurgitation pressure among the LMA groups. We conclude that the correctly placed LMA and FLMA attenuate liquid flow between the esophagus and pharynx. ⋯ We have shown, in cadavers, that the correctly placed standard and flexible laryngeal mask airways attenuate liquid flow between the pharynx and esophagus.