Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 1999
The elimination of sodium and potassium hydroxides from desiccated soda lime diminishes degradation of desflurane to carbon monoxide and sevoflurane to compound A but does not compromise carbon dioxide absorption.
Normal (hydrated) soda lime absorbent (approximately 95% calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)2], the remaining 5% consisting of a mixture of sodium hydroxide [NaOH] and potassium hydroxide [KOH]) degrades sevoflurane to the nephrotoxin Compound A, and desiccated soda lime degrades desflurane, enflurane, and isoflurane to carbon monoxide (CO). We examined whether the bases in soda lime differed in their capacities to contribute to the production of these toxic substances by degradation of the inhaled anesthetics. Our results indicate that NaOH and KOH are the primary determinants of degradation of desflurane to CO and modestly augment production of Compound A from sevoflurane. Elimination of these bases decreases CO production 10-fold and decreases average inspired Compound A by up to 41%. These salutary effects can be achieved with only slight decreases in the capacity of the remaining Ca(OH)2 to absorb carbon dioxide. ⋯ The soda lime bases used to absorb carbon dioxide from anesthetic circuits can degrade inhaled anesthetics to compounds such as carbon monoxide and the nephrotoxin, Compound A. Elimination of the bases sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide decreases production of these noxious compounds without materially decreasing the capacity of the remaining base, Ca(OH)2, to absorb carbon dioxide.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialReduction of blood loss and transfusion requirement by aprotinin in posterior lumbar spine fusion.
Aprotinin reduces blood loss in many orthopedic procedures. In posterior lumbar spine fusion, blood loss results primarily from large vein bleeding and also occurs after the wound is closed. Seventy-two patients undergoing posterior lumbar spine fusion were randomly assigned to large-dose aprotinin therapy or placebo. All patients donated three units of packed red blood cells (RBCs) preoperatively. Postoperative blood loss was harvested from the surgical wound in patients undergoing two- and/or three-level fusion for reinfusion. The target hematocrit for RBC transfusion was 26% if tolerated. Total (intraoperative and 24 h postoperative) blood loss, transfusion requirements, and percentage of transfused patients per treatment group were significantly smaller in the aprotinin group than in the placebo group (1935 +/- 873 vs 2809 +/- 973 mL per patient [P = 0.007]; 42 vs 95 packed RBCs per group [P = 0.001]; 40% vs 81% per group [P = 0.02]). Hematological assessments showed an identically significant (a) intraoperative increase in both thrombin-antithrombin III complexes (TAT) and in activated factor XII (XIIa) and (b) decrease in activated factor VII (VIIa), indicating a similar significant effect on coagulation in patients of both groups (P = 0.9 for intergroup comparisons of postoperative VIIa, XIIa, and TAT). Intraoperative activation of fibrinolysis was significantly less pronounced in the aprotinin group than in the placebo group (P < 0.0001 for intergroup comparison of postoperative D-dimer levels). No adverse drug effects (circulatory disturbances, deep venous thrombosis, alteration of serum creatinine) were detected. Although administered intraoperatively, aprotinin treatment dramatically reduced intraoperative and 24-h postoperative blood loss and autologous transfusion requirements but did not change homologous transfusion in posterior lumbar spine fusion. ⋯ In our study, aprotinin therapy significantly decreased autologous, but not homologous, transfusion requirements in posterior lumbar spine fusion.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialPeribulbar anesthesia with either 0.75% ropivacaine or a 2% lidocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine mixture for vitreoretinal surgery: a double-blinded study.
No study has evaluated the efficacy of ropivacaine in peribulbar block for ophthalmic surgery. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study was to compare ropivacaine and a lidocaine-bupivacaine mixture in peribulbar anesthesia. Sixty ASA physical status I or II patients scheduled for elective vitreoretinal surgery were randomized to receive a peribulbar block with 8 mL of either 0.75% ropivacaine (ropivacaine group, n = 30) or a 1:1 mixture of 2% plain lidocaine and 0.5% plain bupivacaine (lido-bupivacaine group, n = 30). Time required for onset of surgical anesthesia, quality of postoperative analgesia, incidence of side effects, and analgesic consumption were recorded. Surgical block was achieved after 8 +/- 5 min in the lido-bupivacaine group and after 10 +/- 5 min in the ropivacaine group (P = 0.23). A 3-mL supplemental injection 15 min after block placement was required in 6 patients in the lido-bupivacaine group (20%) and in 10 patients in the ropivacaine group (33%) due to inadequate motor block (P = 0.38). On Postoperative Day 1, 26 patients in the ropivacaine group (87%) reported no pain at the verbal rating score, compared with 18 patients in the lido-bupivacaine group (60%) (P = 0.005). We conclude that 0.75% ropivacaine may be a suitable choice when performing peribulbar anesthesia for vitreoretinal surgery. ⋯ Quick onset of block with prolonged postoperative analgesia is an important goal in regional anesthesia for ophthalmic surgery. Evaluating clinical properties of 0.75% ropivacaine and a 1:1 mixture of 2% lidocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine for peribulbar anesthesia, we demonstrated that ropivacaine has an onset similar to that of the lidocaine-bupivacaine mixture and provides a better quality of postoperative analgesia.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialComparison of ropivacaine 0.2% and lidocaine 0.5% for intravenous regional anesthesia in volunteers.
A longer acting local anesthetic such as ropivacaine may offer advantages over lidocaine for IV regional anesthesia (IVRA). The objective of this investigation was to determine whether the use of ropivacaine improves the quality and duration of IVRA. In a randomized, double cross-over design, 10 volunteers received lidocaine 0.5% or ropivacaine 0.2% for IVRA of the upper extremity on two separate days with a standard double-cuff technique. Sensation to pinprick, response to tetanic stimuli, and tourniquet pain were assessed on a 0-10 verbal numeric score scale at 5-min intervals throughout the period of tourniquet inflation. Motor function was evaluated by grip strength. After release of the second (distal) cuff, pinprick sensation, motor strength, and systemic side effects were evaluated at 3, 10, and 30 min. No significant differences were observed for onset times of anesthesia and times to proximal (38 +/- 3 and 36 +/- 3 min) or distal (34 +/- 13 and 36 +/- 13 min) tourniquet release after the administration of ropivacaine and lidocaine, respectively. However, postdeflation hypoalgesia and motor blockade were prolonged with ropivacaine, and postdeflation light-headedness, tinnitus, and drowsiness were more prominent with lidocaine. We conclude that ropivacaine may be an alternative to lidocaine for IVRA. It may result in prolonged analgesia and fewer side effects after tourniquet release. ⋯ In this study, volunteers received lidocaine 0.5% or ropivacaine 0.2% for IV regional anesthesia on two study days. Ropivacaine and lidocaine provided similar surgical conditions. However, after release of the distal tourniquet, prolonged sensory blockade and fewer central nervous system side effects were observed with ropivacaine.