Anesthesia and 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.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe relative potency of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate compared with intravenous morphine in the treatment of moderate to severe postoperative pain.
Pharmacokinetic studies have shown that oral transmucosal absorption of fentanyl is relatively rapid compared with gastrointestinal absorption, and it results in increased bioavailability. We designed this study to establish the relative potency of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) compared with i.v. morphine in 133 postoperative patients. The morning after surgery, patients randomly received one dose of either OTFC (200 or 800 microg) and a placebo i.v. injection or i.v. morphine (2 or 10 mg) and an oral transmucosal placebo unit. Pain intensity, pain relief, time to meaningful pain relief, and time to remedication were recorded. Median time to onset of relief was approximately 5 min for all groups. Over the first hour, little difference among treatment groups was seen for pain intensity and pain relief. By 2 h after study drug administration, 800 microg of OTFC and 10 mg of i.v. morphine generally produced similar analgesia, which was better than the smaller doses. Duration of analgesia with the larger doses (800 microg of OTFC and 10 mg of morphine) was similar and longer that produced by the smaller doses. The larger doses of OTFC and morphine produced better and more sustained analgesia than 200 microg of OTFC or 2 mg of morphine. ⋯ The relative potency of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) to i.v. morphine was 8-14:1. In this postoperative setting, OTFC produced rapid pain relief similar to that produced by i.v. morphine. The larger doses of OTFC (800 microg) and morphine (10 mg) produced better and more sustained analgesia than 200 microg of OTFC or 2 mg of morphine.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe effectiveness of preemptive analgesia varies according to the type of surgery: a randomized, double-blind study.
The reliability of preemptive analgesia is controversial. Its effectiveness may vary among anatomical areas or surgical types. We evaluated preemptive analgesia by epidural morphine in six surgery types in a randomized, double-blind manner. Pain intensity was rated using a visual analog scale, a verbal report, and a measurement of postsurgical morphine consumption. Preemptive analgesia was effective in limb surgery and mastectomy, but ineffective for gastrectomy, hysterectomy, herniorrhaphy, and appendectomy. Relief of postsurgical pain in hemiorrhaphy was more rapid than that in the other surgery types. Preemptive analgesia was effective in limb surgery and mastectomy, but not in surgeries involving laparotomy, regardless of whether the surgery was major (gastrectomy and hysterectomy) or minor (herniorrhaphy and appendectomy). These results suggest that viscero-peritoneal nociception is involved in postsurgical pain. The abdominal viscera and peritoneum are innervated both heterosegmentally (in duplicate or triplicate by the vagus and/or phrenic nerves) and segmentally (by the spinal nerves). Therefore, supraspinal and/or cervical spinal neurons might be sensitized, despite the blockade of the segmental nerves with epidural morphine. The rapid retreat of the pain after hemiorrhaphy suggests that central sensitization remits soon after minor surgery, but that in appendicitis, it may be protracted by additional noxious stimuli, such as infection. ⋯ Epidural preemptive analgesia was reliably effective in limb and breast surgeries but ineffective in abdominal surgery, suggesting involvement of the brainstem and cervical spinal cord via the vagus and phlenic nerves.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 1999
Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical TrialThe preoperative administration of intravenous dextromethorphan reduces postoperative morphine consumption.
We evaluated the effect of dextromethorphan on postoperative pain management. Sixty ASA physical status I-III female patients undergoing major abdominal surgery underwent standardized general anesthesia. Thirty patients received an i.v. infusion of dextromethorphan 5 mg/kg before anesthetic induction (Pre group), whereas the remaining 30 patients received the same volume of isotonic sodium chloride solution, followed by a postoperative i.v. infusion of dextromethorphan 5 mg/kg (Post group). Patients in the Pre group received the same volume of isotonic sodium chloride solution postoperatively. All patients were then treated with patient-controlled i.v. analgesia, which administered a 0.6-mg bolus of morphine on demand (maximal 4 h dose 20 mg). The mean visual analog pain score during cough or movement and at rest were similar in the two groups in the first 3 days postoperatively. However, Post group patients consumed more morphine than Pre group patients during the first 2 days (P < 0.01). The sedation scores, patient satisfaction, and the incidence of morphine-related side effects were similar between the two groups. We conclude that the preoperative administration of dextromethorphan 5 mg/kg reduces postoperative morphine consumption compared with postoperative administration. ⋯ In this double-blinded study, we found that the preoperative administration of i.v. dextromethorphan 5 mg/kg, compared with postoperative administration, reduces postoperative morphine consumption, which may provide clinical evidence of preemptive or preventive analgesic effects of dextromethorphan.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialFentanyl pretreatment does not impair the reliability of an epinephrine-containing test dose during propofol-nitrous oxide anesthesia.
We designed this study to determine the hemodynamic responses to and the efficacy of a simulated IV test dose during propofol anesthesia based on the conventional heart rate (HR; positive if increase > or =20 bpm), the modified HR (positive if increase > or =10 bpm), and the systolic blood pressure (SBP; positive if increase > or =15 mm Hg) criteria. Eighty healthy patients were randomized to receive 2 mg/kgpropofol or propofol plus fentanyl (100 microg) at the induction of anesthesia (n = 40 each). After endotracheal intubation, anesthesia in both groups was maintained with propofol 8 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1) and 67% nitrous oxide in oxygen. Each group of patients was further divided into a test dose group receiving 1.5% lidocaine 3 mL plus epinephrine 15 microg (1:200,000) or a saline group (n = 20 each) receiving 3 mL of isotonic sodium chloride solution i.v. HR and SBP were monitored for 4 min after the i.v. injection of the study drug. The i.v. injection of the test dose produced a HR increase > or =20 bpm in 20 and 17 patients in the propofol and propofol-fentanyl groups, respectively, whereas all patients receiving the test dose and none receiving saline had HR increases > or =10 bpm. Therefore, in the propofol-fentanyl group, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 85%, 100%, 100%, and 87% according to the conventional HR criterion, and all were 100% according to the modified HR criterion. In the propofol group, 100% efficacy was obtained based on both HR criteria. However, all patients receiving the test dose and none receiving saline developed a SBP increase > or =15 mm Hg, resulting in 100% efficacy based on the conventional SBP criterion in both groups. Our results indicate that both the modified HR criterion and the SBP criterion are clinically applicable during propofol anesthesia with or without supplemental fentanyl. ⋯ To determine whether an epidural catheter is in a blood vessel, an epidural test dose containing 15 microg of epinephrine is used. We found that, during propofol anesthesia with or without fentanyl, a heart rate increase > or =10 bpm and a systolic blood pressure increase > or =15 mm Hg are reliable indicators for detecting accidental intravascular injection.