Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialContinuous epidural infusion of large concentration/small volume versus small concentration/large volume of levobupivacaine for postoperative analgesia.
In this randomized study, we evaluated the quality of postoperative analgesia and the incidence of side effects of continuous thoracic epidural levobupivacaine 15 mg/h in 2 different concentrations: 0.5%, 3 mL/h (n = 33) or 0.15%, 10 mL/h (n = 27). The following variables were registered within 48 h: sensory block, pain scores, rescue morphine consumption, motor blockade, hemodynamics, sedation, nausea and vomiting, and patient satisfaction. The two groups were similar with regard to demographics, cephalad level of sensory block, quality of analgesia, morphine consumption, side effects, and high satisfaction rate. Motor blockade was weaker in the 0.5% group (P = 0.025), with a significantly increased hemodynamic stability, compared with the 0.15% group (P = 0.004). In conclusion, the same dose of levobupivacaine provides an equal quality of analgesia in small- or large-volume continuous epidural infusion and decreases the incidence of motor blockade and hemodynamic repercussions. This is in accordance with the assumption that the total dose of local anesthetics determines the spread and quality of analgesia. ⋯ We demonstrated that a large concentration/small volume of levobupivacaine given as a continuous thoracic epidural infusion provided an equal quality of postoperative analgesia as a small-concentration/large-volume infusion and induced less motor blockade and fewer hemodynamic repercussions.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2003
Clinical TrialPredictor of core hypothermia and the surgical intensive care unit.
Inadvertent postoperative core hypothermia is associated with multiple physiological effects, especially in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Despite previous reports of the relationship between patient, surgical, and anesthetic factors and immediate postoperative core hypothermia, this information might need to be reconsidered in the light of progress in surgery, anesthetic, and warming techniques. We designed this prospective study of 194 postgeneral surgical patients to assess the incidence, predictive factors, and outcome of core hypothermia (tympanic membrane core temperature [Tc] <36.0 degrees C) at the time of admission to the general ICU in a large tertiary university medical center from December 2000 to March 2001. The following variables were studied: age, sex, body weight, body surface area, preoperative body temperature, ASA physical status, history of diabetic neuropathy, emergency surgery, surgical subspecialty performing surgery, type of surgery, type of anesthesia (general, regional, or combined epidural and general), temperature monitoring, use of a forced air warming technique, amount of fluid and blood replacement, duration of anesthesia, duration of surgery, and the ambient operating room temperature. Other outcomes, i.e., length of ICU stay and mortality, were also assessed. The incidence of core hypothermia was 57.1%, 41.3%, and 28.3% according to the definition of Tc <36.0 degrees C, <35.5 degrees C, and <35.0 degrees C, respectively. Multiple logistic regression showed the following risk factors for core hypothermia: high ASA physical status (odds ratio, 2.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-10.03 for ASA II; odds ratio, 8.35; 95% CI, 1.67-41.88 for ASA >II), magnitude of surgical procedure (odds ratio, 6.60; 95% CI, 1.66-26.19 for medium surgery; odds ratio, 22.23; 95% CI, 5.41-91.36 for major surgery), use of combined epidural and general anesthesia (odds ratio, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.05-10.88), and duration of surgery >2 h (odds ratio, 4.50; 95% CI, 1.48-13.68). Not using temperature monitoring seems to be a risk factor as well (odds ratio, 3.00; 95% CI, 0.87-10.12). Significant protective factors against core hypothermia were heavier body weight (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.98), higher preoperative body temperature (odds ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.65), and warmer ambient operating room temperature (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.88). In conclusion, the incidence of core hypothermia (Tc <36.0 degrees C) at the time of admission to the general ICU is still frequent. To reduce the incidence, more efforts and concern should be taken to prevent core hypothermia, especially in the patient with high ASA physical status, undergoing more intensive and lengthy surgery, and using combined epidural and general anesthesia. ⋯ In an effort to decrease the frequent incidence of core hypothermia at the time of admission to the general surgical intensive care unit, this prospective study showed that high ASA physical status, the use of a combined epidural and general anesthesia, surgery lasting longer than 2 h, and extensive surgery were the important risk factors, whereas heavier body weight, higher preoperative body temperature, and warmer ambient operating room temperature were important protective factors.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialA single small dose of postoperative ketamine provides rapid and sustained improvement in morphine analgesia in the presence of morphine-resistant pain.
It is a common clinical observation that postoperative pain may be resistant to morphine. The analgesic potentials of ketamine have also been well documented. In this study, we evaluated the effects of postoperative coadministration of small doses of ketamine and morphine on pain intensity, SpO(2), and subjectively rated variables in surgical patients who underwent standardized general anesthesia and complained of pain (> or =6 of 10 on a visual analog scale [VAS]) despite >0.1 mg/kg of i.v. morphine administration within 30 min. Patients randomly received up to three boluses of 30 microg/kg of morphine plus saline (MS; n = 114) or 15 microg/kg of morphine plus 250 microg/kg of ketamine (MK; n = 131) within 10 min in a double-blinded manner. The MS group's pain VAS scores were 5.5 +/- 1.18 and 3.8 +/- 0.9 after 10 and 120 min, respectively, after 2.52 +/- 0.56 injections, versus the MK group's VAS scores of 2.94 +/- 1.28 and 1.47 +/- 0.65, respectively (P < 0.001), after 1.35 +/- 0.56 injections (P < 0.001). The 10-min level of wakefulness (1-10 VAS) in the MS group was significantly (P < 0.001) less (6.1 +/- 1.5) than the MK group's (8.37 +/- 1.19). SpO(2) decreased by 0.26% in the MS group but increased by 1.71% in the MK patients at the 10-min time point (P < 0.001). Thirty MS versus nine MK patients (P < 0.001) experienced nausea/vomiting; nine MK patients sustained a 2-min light-headed sensation, and one patient had a weird dream after the second drug injection. ⋯ A small-dose ketamine and morphine regimen interrupted severe postoperative pain that was not relieved previously by morphine. Ketamine reduced morphine consumption and provided rapid and sustained improvement in morphine analgesia and in subjective feelings of well-being, without unacceptable side effects.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2003
Comparative StudyOrganizational factors affect comparisons of the clinical productivity of academic anesthesiology departments.
Productivity measurements based on "per operating room (OR) site" and "per case" are not influenced by staffing ratios and have permitted meaningful comparisons among small samples of both academic and private-practice anesthesiology groups. These comparisons have suggested that a larger sample would allow for clinical groups to be compared using a number of different variables (including type of hospital, number of OR sites, type of surgical staff, or other organizational characteristics), which may permit more focused benchmarking. In this study, we used such grouping variables to compare clinical productivity in a broad survey of academic anesthesiology programs. Descriptive, billing, and staffing data were collected for 1 fiscal or calendar year from 37 academic anesthesiology departments representing 58 hospitals. Descriptive data included types of surgical staff (e.g., academic versus private practice) and hospital centers (e.g., academic medical centers and ambulatory surgical centers [ASCs]). Billing and staffing data included total number of cases performed, total American Society of Anesthesiologists units (tASA) billed, total time units billed (15-min units), and daily number of anesthetizing sites staffed (OR sites). Measurements of total productivity (tASA/OR site), billed hours per OR site per day (h/OR/d), surgical duration (h/case), hourly billing productivity (tASA/h), and base units/case were compared. These comparisons were made according to type of hospital, number of OR sites, and type of surgical staff. The ASCs had significantly less tASA/OR site, fewer h/OR/d, and less h/case than non-ASC hospitals. Community hospitals had significantly less h/OR/d and h/case than academic medical centers and indigent hospitals and a larger percentage of private-practice or mixed surgical staff. Academic staffs had significantly less tASA/h and significantly more h/case. tASA/h correlated highly with h/case (r = -0.68). This study showed that the hospitals at which academic anesthesiology groups provide care are not all the same from a clinical productivity perspective. By grouping based on type of hospital, number of OR sites, and type of surgical staff, academic anesthesiology departments (and hospitals) can be better compared by using clinical productivity measurements based on "per OR site" and "per case" measurements (tASA/OR, billed h/OR/d, h/case, tASA/h, and base/case). ⋯ Organizational factors, including type of hospital, number of operating rooms, and type of surgical staff, influence the clinical productivity of academic anesthesiology departments. Reporting quartile data by focused grouping variables allows anesthesiology groups to compare their clinical productivity with groups practicing in similar clinical settings.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2003
Clinical TrialInfragluteal-parabiceps sciatic nerve block: an evaluation of a novel approach using a single-injection technique.
Clinical use of the sciatic nerve block (SNB) has been limited by technical difficulties in performing the block using standard approaches, substantial patient discomfort during the procedure, or the need for two injections to block the tibial and peroneal nerves. In this report, we describe a single-injection method for SNB using an infragluteal-parabiceps approach, where the nerve is located along the lateral border of the biceps femoris muscle. SNB was performed in the prone or lateral decubitus position. The needle was positioned (average depth, 56 +/- 15 mm) to the point where plantar flexion (53%) or inversion (45%) of the ipsilateral foot was obtained at < or =0.4 mA. Levobupivacaine 0.625% with epinephrine (1:200:000) was administered at a dose of 0.4 mL/kg. The procedure was completed in 6 +/- 3 min. Discomfort during block placement was treated with fentanyl 50-100 microg in 24% of patients. Complete sensory loss and motor paralysis occurred in 92% of subjects at a median time of 10 (range, 5-25) min after injection. Compared with plantar flexion, foot inversion was associated with a more frequent incidence (86% versus 100%), and shorter latency for both sensory loss and motor paralysis of the peroneal, tibial, and sural nerves. There were no immediate or delayed complications. We conclude that the infragluteal-parabiceps approach to SNB is reliable, efficient, safe, and well tolerated by patients. ⋯ Sciatic nerve block using the infragluteal-parabiceps approach produces sensory loss and motor paralysis after a single 0.4 mL/kg injection of levobupivacaine 0.625% with epinephrine (1:200,000) in >90% of patients. The approach is reliable, uses consistent soft-tissue landmarks, is not typically painful, and does not produce significant complications.