Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2004
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialSpinal 2-chloroprocaine: a comparison with lidocaine in volunteers.
Subarachnoid lidocaine has been the anesthetic of choice for outpatient spinal anesthesia. However, its use is associated with transient neurologic symptoms (TNS). Preservative-free formulations of 2-chloroprocaine are now available and may compare favorably with lidocaine for spinal anesthesia. In this double-blinded, randomized, crossover study, we compared spinal chloroprocaine and lidocaine in 8 volunteers, each receiving 2 spinal anesthetics: 1 with 40 mg 2% lidocaine and the other with 40 mg 2% preservative-free 2-chloroprocaine. Pinprick anesthesia, tolerance to transcutaneous electrical stimulation and thigh tourniquet, motor strength, and a simulated discharge pathway were assessed. Chloroprocaine produced anesthetic efficacy similar to lidocaine, including peak block height (T8 [T5-11] versus T8 [T6-12], P = 0.8183) and tourniquet tolerance (46 +/- 6 min versus 38 +/- 24 min, P = 0.4897). Chloroprocaine anesthesia resulted in faster resolution of sensory (103 +/- 13 min versus 126 +/- 16 min, P = 0.0045) and more rapid attainment of simulated discharge criteria (104 +/- 12 min versus 134 +/- 14 min, P = 0.0007). Lidocaine was associated with mild to moderate TNS in 7 of 8 subjects; no subject complained of TNS with chloroprocaine (P = 0.0004). We conclude that the anesthetic profile of chloroprocaine compares favorably with lidocaine. Reliable sensory and motor blockade with predictable duration and minimal side effects make chloroprocaine an attractive choice for outpatient spinal anesthesia. ⋯ The spinal anesthetic profile of chloroprocaine (40 mg) compares favorably with the same dose of spinal lidocaine. Reliable sensory and motor blockade with predictable duration and minimal side effects and without signs of transient neurological symptoms make chloroprocaine an attractive choice for outpatient spinal anesthesia.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2004
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe effects of three different approaches on the onset time of sciatic nerve blocks with 0.75% ropivacaine.
We studied three different injection techniques of sciatic nerve block in terms of block onset time and efficacy with 0.75% ropivacaine. A total of 75 patients undergoing foot surgery were randomly allocated to receive sciatic nerve blockade by means of the classic posterior approach (group classic; n = 25), a modified subgluteus posterior approach (group subgluteus; n = 25), or a lateral popliteal approach (group popliteal; n = 25). All blocks were performed with the use of a nerve stimulator (stimulation frequency, 2 Hz; intensity, 2-0.5 mA) and 30 mL of 0.75% ropivacaine. Onset of nerve block was defined as complete loss of pinprick sensation in the sciatic nerve distribution with concomitant inability to perform plantar or dorsal flexion of the foot. In the three groups, an appropriate sciatic stimulation was elicited at <0.5 mA. The failure rate was similar in the three groups (group popliteal: 4% versus group classic: 4% versus group subgluteus: 8%). The onset of nerve block was slower in group popliteal (25 +/- 5 min) compared with group classic (16 +/- 4 min) and group subgluteus (17 +/- 4 min; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the onset of nerve block between group classic and group subgluteus. No differences in the degree of pain measured at the first postoperative administration of pain medication were observed among the three groups. We conclude that the three approaches resulted in clinically acceptable anesthesia in the distribution of the sciatic nerve. The subgluteus and classic posterior approaches generated a significantly faster onset of anesthesia than the lateral popliteal approach. ⋯ Comparing three different approaches to the sciatic nerve with 0.75% ropivacaine, the classic and subgluteal approaches exhibited a faster onset time of sensory and motor blockade than the lateral popliteal approach.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2004
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialIntrathecal meperidine decreases shivering during cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia.
Shivering associated with spinal anesthesia is uncomfortable and may interfere with monitoring. We performed this prospective, double-blinded, and randomized study to determine whether intrathecal meperidine (0.2 mg/kg) decreases the incidence and intensity of shivering after spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Forty parturients scheduled for nonemergent cesarean delivery were enrolled in two groups. Spinal anesthesia consisted of hyperbaric bupivacaine (0.75%; 10.5 mg), morphine 0.15 mg, and, in the experimental group, meperidine (0.2 mg/kg) or, in the control group, normal saline. Data collection, including sensory block level, blood pressure, core temperature, and shivering intensity, was performed every minute for 10 min, every 3 min for 33 min, and then every 5 min until the sensory level receded to L4. Time to highest sensory level, maximum number of blocked segments, sensory and motor blockade regression, and systolic blood pressure showed no difference between groups. The incidence of shivering was less (P < 0.02) in the meperidine group, as was its intensity (P < 0.003). Intrathecal meperidine (0.2 mg/kg) is effective in reducing the incidence and intensity of shivering associated with spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. ⋯ Previous studies have suggested that IV meperidine is helpful for treating intraoperative shivering. This study was undertaken to evaluate spinal meperidine and found that it decreases the incidence and intensity of shivering associated with spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2004
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus morphine for postoperative analgesia after major inpatient surgery.
Thirty-four patients scheduled for elective inpatient surgery were randomized equally to receive either dexmedetomidine (initial loading dose of 1- microg/kg over 10 min followed by 0.4 microg. kg(-1). h(-1) for 4 h) or morphine sulfate (0.08 mg/kg) 30 min before the end of surgery. We determined heart rate (HR), mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), respiratory rate (RR), sedation and analgesia (visual analog scale), and use of additional morphine in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and up to 24 h after surgery. Groups were similar for patient demographics, ASA physical status, surgical procedure, baseline hemodynamics, and intraoperative use of drugs and fluids. Dexmedetomidine-treated patients had slower HR in the PACU (by an average of 16 bpm), whereas MAP, RR, and level of sedation were similar between groups. During Phase I recovery, dexmedetomidine-treated patients required significantly less morphine to achieve equivalent analgesia (PACU dexmedetomidine group, 4.5 +/- 6.8 mg; morphine group, 9.2 +/- 5.2 mg). Sixty minutes into recovery only 6 of 17 dexmedetomidine patients required morphine in contrast to 15 of 17 in the morphine group. The administration of dexmedetomidine before the completion of major inpatient surgical procedures significantly reduced, by 66%, the early postoperative need for morphine and was associated with a slower HR in the PACU. ⋯ The use of dexmedetomidine for postoperative analgesia resulted in significantly less additional pain medication (morphine) and slower heart rates than a control group receiving only morphine. These outcomes may prove advantageous for patients who might be placed at higher risk by tachycardia or large doses of morphine.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2004
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialAntagonism of cisatracurium and rocuronium block at a tactile train-of-four count of 2: should quantitative assessment of neuromuscular function be mandatory?
With a train-of-four (TOF) ratio >0.70 as the standard of acceptable recovery, postoperative residual paralysis is a frequent occurrence in postanesthesia care units (PACUs). However, detailed information regarding prior anesthetic management is rarely provided. We examined the incidence of postoperative weakness after the administration of cisatracurium and rocuronium when using a rigid protocol for muscle relaxant and subsequent neostigmine administration. Under desflurane, N(2)O, and opioid anesthesia, tracheal intubation was accomplished after either cisatracurium 0.15 mg/kg or rocuronium 0.60 mg/kg. The response of the thumb to ulnar nerve stimulation was estimated by palpation. Additional increments of muscle relaxant were given as needed to maintain the TOF count at 1 or 2. At the conclusion of surgery, at a TOF count of 2, neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg plus glycopyrrolate 10 micro g/kg was administered. The mechanical TOF response was then measured with a force transducer starting 5 min postreversal. Patients were observed until a TOF ratio of 0.90 was achieved. There were no significant differences in the recovery profiles of cisatracurium versus rocuronium. TOF ratios at 10 min postreversal were 0.72 +/- 0.10 and 0.76 +/- 0.11, respectively. At 15 min postreversal, only one subject in each group had a TOF ratio of <0.70. No patient in either group arrived in the PACU with a TOF ratio <0.70. Our results suggest that if cisatracurium or rocuronium is administered by using the TOF count as a guide, critical episodes of postoperative weakness in the PACU should be an infrequent occurrence. ⋯ After the administration of cisatracurium or rocuronium, train-of-four (TOF) ratios <0.70 should rarely be observed in the postanesthesia care unit if neostigmine-assisted antagonism of residual block is delayed until the tactile TOF count at the thumb is 2 or more.