Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 2002
Vocalization responses after intrathecal administration of ionotropic glutamate receptor agonists in rats.
Inotropic glutamate receptors in the spinal cord (N-methyl-D-aspartic acid [NMDA], alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid [AMPA], and kainate receptors) seem to play a key role in acute pain transmission and the neuronal plasticity in chronic pain states. Vocalization responses produced by activation of these receptors on the pain pathways can be quantified semiautomatically and thus could be used as a research tool. We studied vocalization responses induced by intrathecal administration of various agonists acting at the glutamate receptors in normal rats and in the presence of peripheral inflammation and a chronic constriction injury model of neuropathic pain. The nonselective endogenous agonist, glutamate, and the NMDA receptor glycine site agonist D-serine did not produce vocalization, whereas selective agonists acting at AMPA, NMDA, and kainate receptors produced dose-related vocalization responses. The vocalization response evoked by the administration of AMPA was significantly increased in the neuropathic pain model. In conclusion, spinal administration of ionotropic glutamate receptor agonists produce short-lasting, dose-related vocalization responses that can be used as a basic research and screening tool for analgesic studies. However, peripheral inflammation or nerve injury did not substantially alter vocalization responses overall, possibly indicating that the vocalization test is not a good tool for studying the role of excitatory amino acids in these pathological pain conditions. ⋯ Vocalization responses evoked by spinal administration of ionotropic glutamate receptor agonists can be used for experimental analgesic studies. However, pathological pain models did not substantially alter vocalization responses, possibly indicating that this test is not suitable for studying the role of spinal excitatory amino acids in central sensitization.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 2002
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialFour-injection brachial plexus block using peripheral nerve stimulator: a comparison between axillary and humeral approaches.
We conducted this prospective, randomized study to compare the success rate, performance time, and onset time of surgical anesthesia of a four-injection brachial plexus block performed at the axillary (Group Axillary; n = 50) or at the humeral (Group Humeral; n = 50) level using a peripheral nerve stimulator. All patients received 40 mL of a mixture of equal parts of 0.5% bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine. Four patients in Group Axillary and two in Group Humeral were excluded from the study because all of the four nerves were not localized in the allotted time. The incidence of complete block (91% versus 89%), defined as block of all the sensory areas below the elbow, and the onset time of sensory block (15 +/- 6 min versus 16 +/- 7 min) were not different between the groups. The performance time was shorter in Group Humeral (7 +/- 2 min versus 8 +/- 2 min; P < 0.005). Block performance pain was lower in Group Axillary patients (16 +/- 9 min versus 23 +/- 12 min; P < 0.005). For four-injection brachial plexus block, we conclude that both the axillary and the humeral approaches provide a high success rate and a rapid onset of sensory anesthesia; the differences found between the groups could be considered clinically unimportant. ⋯ Two methods of brachial plexus block using a nerve-stimulator were compared in a prospective study. A four-injection technique was performed at the axillary or at the humeral level. Both approaches provided a fast onset and a high success rate. The differences found between the groups could be considered clinically unimportant.