Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Aug 2005
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of Espocan and Tuohy needles for the combined spinal-epidural technique for labor analgesia.
When using the needle-through-needle combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique for labor analgesia, failure to obtain cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), paresthesias, and intrathecal or intravascular migration of the catheter are of concern. Epidural needles with spinal needle apertures, such as the back-hole Espocan (ES) needles, are available and may reduce these risks. We describe the efficacy and adverse events associated with a modified epidural needle (ES) versus a conventional Tuohy needle for CSE. One-hundred parturients requesting labor analgesia (CSE) were randomized into 2 groups: 50-ES 18-gauge modified epidural needle with 27-gauge Pencan atraumatic spinal needle, 50-conventional 18-gauge Tuohy needle with 27-gauge Gertie Marx atraumatic spinal needle. Information on intrathecal or intravascular catheter placement, paresthesia on introduction of spinal needle, failure to obtain CSF through the spinal needle after placement of epidural needle, unintentional dural puncture, and epidural catheter function was obtained. No intrathecal catheter placement occurred in either group. Rates of intravascular catheter placement and unintentional dural puncture were similar between the groups. Significant differences were noted regarding spinal needle-induced paresthesia (14% ES versus 42% Tuohy needles, P = 0.009) and failure to obtain CSF on first attempt (8% ES versus 28% Tuohy needles, P < 0.02). Use of ES needles for CSE significantly reduces paresthesia associated with the insertion of the spinal needle and is associated with more frequent successful spinal needle placement on the first attempt. ⋯ The use of modified epidural needles with a back hole for combined spinal-epidural technique significantly reduces paresthesia associated with the insertion of the spinal needle and is associated with more frequent successful spinal needle placement on the first attempt.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Aug 2005
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialRemifentanil as a single drug for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a comparison of infusion doses in terms of analgesic potency and side effects.
This randomized, double-blind study was designed to evaluate analgesic effectiveness and side effects of two remifentanil infusion rates in patients undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for renal stones. We included 200 patients who were administered remifentanil either 0.05 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) (n = 100) or 0.1 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) (n = 100) plus demand bolus of 10 microg of remifentanil via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device. No other sedating drugs were given. The frequencies of PCA demands and deliveries were recorded. Arterial blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate were recorded throughout the procedure; postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), dizziness, itching, agitation, and respiratory depression were measured posttreatment. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores were taken preoperatively, directly postoperatively, and 30 min after finishing the procedure. There were no statistically significant differences in the frequency of PCA demands and delivered boluses or among perioperative VAS scores. The extent of PONV and frequency of dizziness and itching immediately after and dizziness 30 min after the end of treatment were significantly reduced in the smaller dose group. We conclude that a remifentanil regimen of 0.05 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) plus 10 microg demands is superior to 0.1 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) plus demands, as there was no difference in the VAS scores recorded between groups and it has a less frequent incidence of side effects in patients receiving ESWL. ⋯ Remifentanil is an appropriate analgesic choice for patients undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) therapy, as it has both fast onset and offset times. We studied remifentanil as a sole drug for ESWL and have shown that an infusion rate of 0.05 microg x kg-1 x min-1 plus patient-controlled analgesia demands of 10 microg provides adequate analgesia and has significantly less side effects than a dose of 0.1 microg x kg-1 x min-1 plus 10 microg demands.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Aug 2005
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe short-lasting analgesia and long-term antihyperalgesic effect of intrathecal clonidine in patients undergoing colonic surgery.
In this study, we investigated the antihyperalgesic effect of clonidine after surgery. Sixty patients undergoing right colic resection were studied. Patients were randomized to receive prior to general anesthesia a 2-mL intrathecal (IT) injection of 300 microg of clonidine or saline, or 10 mg of bupivacaine. General anesthesia was achieved using a target concentration propofol infusion and monitored using bispectral index. Postoperative analgesia was provided by morphine IV given through a patient-controlled analgesia device. Postoperative analgesia was assessed by morphine requirements and visual analog scale pain scores at rest, cough, and movement during the first 72 h. Mechanical hyperalgesia was measured by von Frey filaments. Patients were questioned regarding residual pain at 2 wk,1, 6, and 12 mo. The patient-controlled analgesia morphine requirements were significantly smaller in the IT clonidine group (31.5 +/- 12 versus 91 +/- 25.5 and 43 +/- 15 mg, respectively, in groups clonidine, saline, and bupivacaine: P < 0.05 at 72 postoperative hours). The area of hyperalgesia at 72 h was 3 +/- 5 cm(2) in the clonidine group versus 90 +/- 30 and 35 +/- 20 cm(2) in the saline and bupivacaine groups (P < 0.05). At 6 mo, fewer patients in the clonidine group experienced residual pain than in the saline group (0 of 20 versus 6 of 20, P < 0.05). We conclude that both intraoperative spinal clonidine and bupivacaine improve immediate postoperative analgesia. IT clonidine was, however, more potent than IT bupivacaine to reduce postoperative secondary hyperalgesia. ⋯ Spinal clonidine contributes to the reduction of secondary hyperalgesia in patients recovering from abdominal surgery.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Aug 2005
Comparative StudyUltrasound guidance for facet joint injections in the lumbar spine: a computed tomography-controlled feasibility study.
We conducted this study to develop an ultrasound-guided approach for facet joint injections of the lumbar spine. Five zygapophyseal joints (L1-S1) on each side of 5 embalmed cadavers were examined by ultrasound for a total of 50 examinations. The joint space was demonstrated under ultrasound guidance. The midpoint of the joint space, defined as the middle of its cranio-caudal extension on its dorsal surface, was taken as a reference point, and its position was computed from its depth and lateral distance from the spinous process. Forty-two of 50 approaches could be clearly visualized. Subsequently, these distances were compared to those obtained by computed tomography (CT). To assess the efficacy of ultrasound in the needle placement, all lumbar facet joints were approached in one embalmed cadaver. The exact placement of the needle tips was again evaluated by CT. Ultrasound and CT measurements showed the same mean depth and lateral distance to the reference point, 3.15 +/- 0.5 cm and 1.9 +/- 0.6 cm, respectively. Pearson's coefficient of correlation was 0.86 (P < 0.0001) between ultrasound and CT. All 10 needle tips were within the joint space during simulated facet joint injections. We conclude that ultrasound guidance might be a useful adjunct for facet joint injections in the lumbar spine. ⋯ This study was designed to develop an ultrasound-guided approach to the facet joints of the lumbar spine and to assess its feasibility and accuracy by means of a comparison to computed tomography images. The imaging study demonstrated a significant correlation between ultrasound and computed tomography measurements. During simulated facet injection, ultrasound guidance consistently resulted in accurate needle placement.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Aug 2005
Comparative StudyThe comparative neurotoxicity of intrathecal lidocaine and bupivacaine in rats.
There is a considerable difference in the number of reports of neurologic injury in the literature between lidocaine and other local anesthetics. Few in vivo animal studies have produced convincing results showing a difference in neurotoxicity among anesthetics. We investigated whether lidocaine and bupivacaine differ with respect to sensory impairment and histologic damage when equipotent doses of the two are administered intrathecally in rats. First, to determine relative anesthetic potency, rats intrathecally received 20 muL of saline, 0.625%, 1.25%, 2.5%, or 5% lidocaine, or 0.125%, 0.25%, 0.5%, or 1.0% bupivacaine, and were examined with the tail-flick test for 90 min. The potency ratio calculated was approximately 1:4.70 (95% confidence interval, 3.65-6.07) for lidocaine/bupivacaine. In the next experiment, 45 rats intrathecally received 20 muL of saline, 2.13% bupivacaine (approximately 1.5 mg/kg), or 10% lidocaine (approximately 6.9 mg/kg), and were examined for persistent functional impairment and morphologic damage. Rats given lidocaine developed significantly more prolonged tail-flick latencies than those in other groups 4 days after injection and incurred more morphologic damage than those given saline or bupivacaine. In conclusion, although the doses of anesthetics administered were larger than those used clinically, the present results suggest that bupivacaine is less neurotoxic than lidocaine when administered intrathecally at equipotent concentrations in the rat model. ⋯ Bupivacaine induces less severe functional impairment and morphologic damage than lidocaine when the two anesthetics are intrathecally administered at equipotent concentrations in the rat.