Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe use of a selective axillary nerve block for outpatient hand surgery.
Although no guidelines concerning discharge criteria after axillary plexus block are available, many institutions consider recovery of motor function as a critical factor. With the midhumeral approach, the four main nerves of the upper extremity can be blocked separately using a peripheral nerve stimulator. The aim of this double-blind study was to block the radial (R) and musculocutaneous (MC) nerves with lidocaine, and the median (M) and ulnar (U) nerves with bupivacaine to recover motor function of the elbow and wrist more rapidly while maintaining long-lasting postoperative analgesia at the operative site. Patients undergoing surgery for Dupuytren's contracture were randomized into two groups in a double-blind fashion: in the control group (n = 17), each of the four nerves was infiltrated with 10 mL of a mixture of 2% lidocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine, whereas in the selective group (n = 17), the R and MC nerves were blocked with 10 mL of 2% lidocaine each and the M and U nerves were blocked with 10 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine each. Recovery of motor block was significantly faster in the selective group (231 +/- 91 vs 466 +/- 154 min). However, time to first sensation of pain was not different between groups (707 +/- 274 vs 706 +/- 291 min). In conclusion, this new approach at the midhumeral level enables the anesthesiologist to selectively administer local anesthetics on different nerves. ⋯ In outpatients undergoing surgery for Dupuytren's contracture, a midhumeral block was used with the musculocutaneous and radial nerves blocked by lidocaine and the median and ulnar nerves blocked with bupivacaine. Recovery of motor function and time to discharge were shorter compared with patients who received the mixture on all four nerves.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialEpidural verapamil reduces analgesic consumption after lower abdominal surgery.
In this double-blind study, we administered lumbar epidural bupivacaine or bupivacaine plus verapamil to investigate the possible role of the calcium channel blocker, verapamil, in postoperative pain. One hundred patients (ASA physical class I or II) scheduled for lower abdominal surgery were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Group 1 received 10 mL of 0.5% epidural bupivacaine injected 15 min before incision, followed by 10 mL of epidural normal saline 30 min after incision. Group 2 received 10 mL of epidural normal saline injected before incision, followed by 10 mL of 0.5% epidural bupivacaine 30 min after incision. Group 3 received 10 mL of 0.5% epidural bupivacaine plus 5 mg of verapamil injected before incision, followed by 10 mL of epidural normal saline 30 min after incision. Group 4 received the same drugs as Group 3, in the reverse order. Pain and mood numeric rating scores, sedation scores, Prince Henry scores, patient-controlled cumulative postoperative analgesic consumption, and the incidence of side effects were assessed 2, 6, 12, 24, and 48 h after the operation in each group. Cumulative postoperative analgesic consumption in Groups 3 and 4 was significantly lower (P < 0.05) than that in Groups 1 and 2 24 and 48 h after surgery. There were no differences in the pain, mood, and sedation scores and the incidence of side effects among the four groups. We conclude that epidural verapamil decreases postoperative pain, possibly by interfering with normal sensory processing and by preventing the establishment of central sensitization. ⋯ Calcium plays an important role in pain physiology at the spinal cord level. We examined the effect of bupivacaine plus verapamil (calcium channel blocker) and of bupivacaine alone. We demonstrated that the combination, administered epidurally, resulted in less postoperative analgesic consumption than bupivacaine alone.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialPropofol concentration required for endotracheal intubation with a laryngoscope or fiberscope and its interaction with fentanyl.
The administration of fentanyl with propofol reduces the blood concentration of propofol required to achieve adequate anesthesia for tracheal intubation. However, different intubation procedures have variable intensities of noxious stimulation and may require different levels of anesthesia. The goal of this study was to determine the propofol blood concentration at which 50% of patients did not respond to stimulation (Cp50) for laryngoscopy, intubation with a laryngoscope, insertion of a slotted oral-pharyngeal airway (Ovassapian airway), and intubation with a fiberscope when administered in conjunction with fentanyl. Patients undergoing elective surgery were given varying amounts of propofol or propofol with fentanyl, and their responses to the four procedures listed above were assessed. These experiments demonstrated that the propofol concentration required for intubation with a laryngoscope was similar to that for intubation with a fiberscope, and that the required level was reduced by fentanyl. Hemodynamic responses to intubation were lower with a fiberscope than with a laryngoscope. We conclude that almost the same concentrations of propofol or fentanyl are necessary for suppressing both of the somatic responses to tracheal intubation with a fiberscope or a laryngoscope. Hemodynamic responses were attenuated more during intubation with a fiberscope. ⋯ The propofol blood concentrations at which 50% of patients did not respond to stimulation for laryngoscopy, tracheal intubation with a laryngoscope, and tracheal intubation with a fiberscope were 10.9, 19.6, and 19.9 microg/mL, respectively. These were reduced by fentanyl. Hemodynamic responses to intubation were less with a fiberscope than with a laryngoscope.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1998
Comparative StudyCardiovascular and central nervous system effects of intravenous levobupivacaine and bupivacaine in sheep.
Commercially available bupivacaine is an equimolar mixture of R(+)- and S(-)-bupivacaine. S(-)-bupivacaine (i.e., levobupivacaine) is currently undergoing preclinical evaluation. Cross-over studies with i.v. levobupivacaine and bupivacaine were conducted in two groups of seven conscious sheep. Doses were chosen to avoid convulsions (smaller dose 6.25-37.5 mg/min) or to be potentially toxic (larger dose 75-200 mg/3 min). In subconvulsive doses, both drugs produced similar time- and dose-dependent depression of left ventricular systolic contractility (dP/dt(max)). Convulsions occurred consistently with > or = 75 mg of bupivacaine and > or = 100 mg of levobupivacaine, producing an abrupt reversal of dP/dt(max) depression. Subconvulsive doses produced minor cardiovascular effects on heart rate and blood pressure, whereas both were increased by convulsions. Cardiac output and myocardial blood flow were decreased with larger doses of both drugs. Doses > 75 mg of bupivacaine or > 100 mg of levobupivacaine induced QRS widening and ventricular arrhythmias, but significantly fewer and less deleterious arrhythmias were induced by levobupivacaine. Three animals died after 150, 150, and 200 mg of bupivacaine from the sudden onset of ventricular fibrillation. These doses of levobupivacaine produced nonfatal arrhythmias that automatically returned to sinus rhythm. We conclude that levobupivacaine could offer a greater margin of clinical safety than bupivacaine. ⋯ Levobupivacaine comprises 50% of commercially available bupivacaine and is being considered for use in its own right. Local anesthetics can cause toxicity to the cardiovascular and central nervous systems. As a part of a preclinical evaluation of levobupivacaine, this study compared the toxic effects of levobupivacaine and bupivacaine in sheep.