Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialRopivacaine 0.15% plus sufentanil 0.5 microg/mL and ropivacaine 0.10% plus sufentanil 0.5 microg/mL are equivalent for patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor.
We compared the administration of 0.15% ropivacaine plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil with that of 0.10% ropivacaine plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil for labor analgesia with patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) to determine whether a decreased concentration of ropivacaine could produce equally effective analgesia. One-hundred-thirty healthy pregnant women at term were randomized in a double-blinded fashion. The PCEA settings were as follows: 12-mL initial bolus, 5-mL bolus dose, 5-min lockout interval, and 10 mL/h basal infusion. Patient demographics and labor characteristics were comparable in both groups. No differences were observed for pain scores, maternal satisfaction, volume of anesthetic solution administered, number of boluses requested and delivered, need for supplemental boluses, mode of delivery, motor block, side effects, or Apgar scores. Patients in the 0.10% ropivacaine group used significantly less drug than those in the 0.15% group (mean, 57 mg; 95% confidence interval, 50.5-63.5 mg; versus mean, 88.0 mg; 95% confidence interval, 74.4-93.3 mg, respectively; P < 0.0001). Ropivacaine 0.10% plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil administered via PCEA for labor analgesia is equally effective as ropivacaine 0.15% plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil, with a 30% local anesthetic-sparing effect and a 40% reduction in cost. However, this reduction in local anesthetic is not associated with a decrease in the incidence of motor block, side effects, or instrumental deliveries. ⋯ Ropivacaine 0.10% plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil given via patient-controlled epidural anesthesia for labor analgesia is equally as effective as ropivacaine 0.15% plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil, with a 30% local anesthetic-sparing effect and a 40% reduction in cost. This reduction in ropivacaine concentration is not associated with a decrease in the incidence of motor block, side effects, or instrumental deliveries.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 2003
Parental intervention choices for children undergoing repeated surgeries.
No studies have examined parental preference for a preoperative intervention in healthy children undergoing subsequent surgeries. We collected data prospectively from 83 children who previously underwent surgery and were part of an investigation by our study group, then returned for a subsequent surgery. At the initial surgery, children were assigned (no parental intervention) to receive oral midazolam (n = 13), or parental presence during the induction of anesthesia (PPIA, n = 27), or PPIA + midazolam (n = 10) or no intervention (n = 33). At a subsequent surgery, parents chose the preoperative intervention. We found that >80% of all parents chose PPIA (with or without midazolam) at the subsequent surgery regardless of the intervention they received previously. Of parents whose children received PPIA at the initial surgery, 70% chose PPIA again. In contrast, only 23% of the patients who received midazolam at the initial surgery requested midazolam at the subsequent surgery and only 15% of the patients who received no intervention at the initial surgery requested no intervention at the subsequent surgery. All parents of very anxious children at the initial surgery chose some intervention at the subsequent surgery (P = 0.022). Parents of children who underwent a subsequent surgery preferred PPIA regardless of any previous intervention. Also, parents' intervention preferences at the subsequent surgery were influenced by children's anxiety at the initial surgery. ⋯ Parents of children who undergo a subsequent surgery prefer to be present during the induction of anesthesia regardless of whether the child was medicated or had parents present or did not receive anything at the initial surgery. Also, parents' preference for medication or parental presence at the subsequent surgery was influenced by the child's anxiety at the initial surgery.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialClinical results with the acoustic puncture assist device, a new acoustic device to identify the epidural space.
Sixty patients scheduled for lumbar epidural anesthesia were included in a study in which we evaluated the efficacy of localizing the epidural space by means of an acoustic signal. A prototype of an acoustic puncture assist device, connected to the epidural needle by an extension tube, generated the pressure needed to perform the epidural puncture and translated this pressure into corresponding acoustic and visible signals. The device frees the anesthesiologist to handle the epidural needle with both hands and to detect the epidural space by means of these signals. In all 60 patients (100%), the epidural space was successfully located by using the acoustic signal. In all cases, this was confirmed by the pressure measurement, which proved to be a reliable indicator for correct identification of the epidural space. We conclude that it is possible to locate the epidural space by means of the acoustic puncture assist device. The method proved to be reliable, safe, and simple in this study. The benefits of this new epidural puncture technique include better needle control, teaching, control of correct catheter placement, and documentation. The last can be an important adjunct to anesthesia practice. ⋯ The authors demonstrate that it is possible to identify the epidural space by an acoustic and visible signal. An experimental setup constructed for this purpose makes the epidural puncture procedure audible and visible.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe effect of epidural test dose on motor function after a combined spinal-epidural technique for labor analgesia.
Labor analgesia initiated with intrathecal bupivacaine and fentanyl, without a local anesthetic epidural test dose, provides effective analgesia and allows ambulation. In this study, we sought to determine the effect of a lidocaine-epinephrine test dose administered immediately after the initiation of combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia with bupivacaine 2.5 mg and fentanyl 25 micro g on parturients' hemodynamic stability, posterior column function, motor strength, and subjective ability to walk. Parturients (n = 153) were randomized to receive either 3 mL of epidural saline or lidocaine 1.5% with epinephrine 1:200,000. Hemodynamic variables, proprioception, straight leg raise, and the modified Bromage score were analyzed in 110 parturients who completed the study protocol and were not different between groups. Vibratory sense, the ability to perform a partial deep knee bend and to step up on a stool, and the subjective ability to walk were impaired in a larger number of parturients in the lidocaine-epinephrine group at 30 min (P < 0.05). At 60 min, there were no differences between the groups except that fewer parturients in the lidocaine-epinephrine group could step up on a stool. The straight leg raise against resistance and the modified Bromage scale did not correlate well with other tests of motor strength (Spearman's rho, 0.273-0.405). These data suggest that the test dose should be avoided immediately after initiation of CSE analgesia when early ambulation is desired. ⋯ A lidocaine-epinephrine epidural test dose (3 mL of lidocaine 1.5% with epinephrine 1:200,000), injected immediately after the initiation of combined spinal-epidural labor analgesia with bupivacaine 2.5 mg and fentanyl 25 microg, may interfere with the ability to perform simple tests of motor function and ambulation.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 2003
Clinical TrialThe effect of epidural neostigmine combined with ropivacaine and sufentanil on neuraxial analgesia during labor.
Spinal neostigmine produces analgesia without respiratory depression or hypotension but provokes major gastrointestinal side effects. Epidural injection of this drug, however, appears to induce analgesia devoid of such side effects. In this study, we evaluated the effect of a bolus of epidural neostigmine on the duration and magnitude of analgesia in early labor and assessed its eventual sparing effect on subsequent local anesthetic requirements. Epidural neostigmine methylsulfate (maximal dose 4 microg/kg) was added to 10 mL of ropivacaine 0.1%, with and without sufentanil 10 microg, to initiate analgesia. Twenty minutes after injection, pain score, sensory level, and motor block were assessed. Time until request for supplemental epidural medication was also recorded. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia with ropivacaine 0.1% was used for epidural supplementation. Maternal and fetal side effects were closely recorded. Neostigmine (4 microg/kg), when added to ropivacaine 10 mg, provided equivalent analgesia to ropivacaine 20 mg but was less effective than sufentanil 10 microg for the initiation of labor epidural analgesia. Further, neostigmine did not modify the subsequent patient-controlled epidural analgesia local anesthetic requirements during labor. No hemodynamic instability, additional motor block, or bothersome side effects were recorded. ⋯ The combination of epidural neostigmine (4 microg/kg) with the local anesthetic ropivacaine, with or without sufentanil, does not significantly enhance neuraxial analgesia during labor. Such a dose, however, has no bothersome side effects.