经硬膜外穿刺针注入利多卡因对剖宫产术连续硬膜外麻醉效应的影响

目的评价经硬膜外穿刺针注射局麻药后再置管对剖宫产术连续硬膜外麻醉效应的影响。方法单胎足月妊娠拟在连续硬膜外麻醉下行子宫下段剖宫产术的产妇100例,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,随机均分为研究组（P组）和对照组（C组）。硬膜外穿刺成功后,P组先通过硬膜外针注入2%利多卡因,注射完后保持注射器压缩针栓20 s,使液体充分扩散后再置入硬膜外导管;C组置入硬膜外导管后再注入2%利多卡因。记录置入硬膜外导管时的不良反应;测量给药完毕后20 min的麻醉平面,并评估麻醉满意度;记录置管时主诉异感和发生单侧阻滞的例数。结果与C组比较,P组硬膜外穿刺针针尾见淡红色血水的发生率（14%vs.36%）、硬膜外导管回抽出淡红色血水的发生率（4%vs.16%）明显降低（P<0.05）。P组利多卡因用量为（312±18）mg,明显少于C组的（355±32）mg（P<0.01）。给药后20 minP组的麻醉平面达T_5.6±0.8,明显高于C组的T_6.5±1.1（P<0.01）,且麻醉满意度显著增加（96%vs.84%）（P<0.01）。结论硬膜外置管前从硬膜外针注入局麻药不仅能有效减少置管对剖宫产产妇硬膜外血管的损伤,而且还能显著提高麻醉效果,减少局麻药的用量。     

Administration of local anesthetic through the epidural needle before catheter insertion improves the quality of anesthesia and reduces catheter-related complications

Epidural catheter placement offers flexibility in block management. However, during epidural catheter insertion, complications such as paresthesia and venous and subarachnoid cannulation may occur, and suboptimal catheter placement can affect the quality of anesthesia. We performed this prospective, randomized, double-blind study to assess the effect of a single-injection dose of local anesthetic (20 mL of 2% lidocaine) through the epidural needle as a priming solution into the epidural space before catheter insertion. We randomized 240 patients into 2 equal groups and measured the quality of anesthesia and the incidence of complications. In the needle group (n = 100), catheters were inserted after injection of a full dose of local anesthetic through the needle. In the catheter group (n = 98), the catheters were inserted immediately after identification of the epidural space. Local anesthetic was then injected via the catheter. We noted the occurrence of paresthesia, inability to advance the catheter, or IV or subarachnoid catheter placement. Sensory and motor block were assessed 20 min after the injection of local anesthetic. Surgery was initiated when adequate sensory loss was confirmed. In the catheter group, the incidence of paresthesia during catheter placement was 31.6% compared with 11% in the needle group (P = 0.00038). IV catheterization occurred in 8.2% versus 2% of patients in the catheter and needle groups, respectively (P = 0.048). More patients in the needle group had excellent surgical conditions than the catheter group (89.6% versus 72.9; P < 0.003). We conclude that giving a single-injection dose via the epidural needle before catheter placement improves the quality of epidural anesthesia and reduces catheter-related complications.     

Fetal heart rate after epidural lidocaine and bupivacaine for elective cesarean section

This prospective double-blind study was designed to determine whether the fetal heart rate (FHR) changes that have been reported after epidural administration of bupivacaine and lidocaine during labor are present when larger doses of these drugs are given during elective cesarean section. Prior to inserting an epidural catheter, FHR and maternal vital signs were monitored during a control period in 60 healthy term parturients. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 0.5% bupivacaine with 0.1 mEq sodium bicarbonate added to each 20 ml (n = 30) or 2% lidocaine with 1:300,000 epinephrine (n = 30). A 3-ml test dose of the study solution was injected via the catheter and was followed by an additional 17 ml, in increments; additional doses were administered as necessary to obtain surgical anesthesia. FHR and maternal vital signs were monitored for at least 20 min and the characteristics of the anesthetic block noted. At delivery, neonatal status was evaluated, and maternal and cord blood samples were obtained for local anesthetic assays and neonatal blood gases. The groups were similar with respect to maternal characteristics, onset of surgical anesthesia, time to delivery, and uterine incision-delivery interval. Maternal blood pressure decreased from control values in both groups (P less than 0.05), but there was no difference between the groups in either the incidence of hypotension or ephedrine requirements. Analysis of FHR tracings by a perinatologist blinded to the study group revealed no changes after anesthesia and no significant differences between the groups at any time in basal FHR, short- or long-term variability, or the incidence of accelerations or decelerations.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Epidural catheter function during labor predicts anesthetic efficacy for subsequent cesarean delivery

One of the benefits of labor epidural analgesia is that the catheter can be used to initiate a surgical block should the need for cesarean delivery arise. However, sometimes it is not possible to obtain adequate surgical anesthesia via a previously placed labor epidural catheter and it is unknown what factors are associated with this failure. We retrospectively investigated the incidence of failure to convert a labor epidural to a successful surgical block in our institution over a period of one year and determined the factors associated with this failure. There were 246 cases in which a patient had an epidural catheter placed for labor and then had a cesarean delivery. Of these 246 cases, 220 developed surgical anesthesia using the catheter. In six cases the anesthesiologist did not attempt to use the epidural catheter for the cesarean delivery. In 20 cases (classified as failed blocks), the catheter was injected, but another method of anesthesia was then used. Factors associated with failure of the epidural block were an increased requirement for supplemental local anesthetic boluses during labor in order to provide adequate analgesia and that the attending anesthesiologist for the cesarean delivery was not a specialist in obstetric anesthesia. Most epidural catheters placed for labor can be used to induce a surgical block. When significantly more local anesthetic than usual is required to maintain analgesia during labor, however, the epidural catheter may not be functioning properly and consideration should be given to replacing it.     

Recent advances in obstetric anesthesia

The low-dose technique of combined spinal/epidural analgesia is to be welcomed in obstetrics. Its merits include rapid onset of analgesia, with the flexibility of an epidural technique, and high maternal satisfaction. It is a safe and effective technique. Pulse oximetry should be employed when using intrathecal opioids. Commercially available combined-needle devices may make this technique more attractive to users. The role of spinal anesthesia for emergency cesarean section in severe preeclampsia has been reevaluated recently. We consider it a feasible option for those severely preeclamptic women requiring urgent cesarean section who do not have an epidural catheter in place. The choice of anesthetic technique for this patient population should be made on clinical judgment and not on anticipated hemodynamic changes. Spinal anaesthesia for cesarean section is associated with hypotension; however, certain interventions may reduce the incidence and severity of the hypotension. An increase in cardiac output appears to be key in attenuating the hypotensive response to spinal anesthesia. Colloids have exhibited most success in this regard. At our institution, we do not delay spinal anesthesia for urgent cesarean section in order to administer a predetermined volume of fluid; in such cases, we simultaneously administer a fluid preload and spinal anesthesia. Recent studies regarding the use of cell savers for blood conservation in obstetrics are based on small numbers of patients. These studies show great promise, particularly with the modern emphasis on avoiding blood transfusion, which can be massive in this usually young patient population.     

Anesthetic effect of epidural anesthesia with cephalad or caudad catheterization for ankle surgery or hemorrhoidectomy

BACKGROUND: The larger size of the first sacral nerve root has been reported to be an unfavorable factor leading to sacral sparing in epidural anesthesia. Previous studies have shown that an adequate analgesic effect of the epidural block was achieved with the catheter placement in the caudal direction. In this study, the anesthetic effect of epidural anesthesia with catheter placement of a cephalic or caudad direction was compared in ankle and hemorrhoid surgery. METHODS: Twenty-one ASA physical status I or II patients undergoing surgery for ankle fractures with epidural anesthesia were enrolled and randomized into two groups. The epidural catheter was placed either to a cephalad (AU group) or caudal (AD group) direction. Another 21 patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy were also randomized into two groups to receive epidural anesthesia in a similar way (HU and HD groups). The onset for, duration of, and recovery time from epidural anesthesia and the incidence of analgesic request were recorded. RESULTS: No significant differences were demonstrated when age, height, weight or sex were compared between the four study groups. The onset time of the block and the incidence of intrasurgical analgesic request were lower in the caudal subgroup when the ankle surgery patients were compared. Otherwise, there were no significant differences in the duration of anesthesia and time to recovery or level of anesthesia. CONCLUSION: Injection of local anesthetic solution through a caudally oriented epidural catheter produces faster onset and superior quality of anesthesia in comparison with the injection through the cephaladly oriented catheter in ankle surgery, but not hemorrhoidectomy.     

Combined spinal and epidural anesthesia for cesarean section: a retrospective study with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine

BACKGROUND: We investigated retrospectively the relationship between the intrathecal dose of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine and the use of 2% mepivacaine through an epidural catheter. METHODS: Forty-nine patients undergoing cesarean section with combined spinal and epidural anesthesia (CSEA) were analyzed. They were divided into two groups; with (CSEA group) and without additional epidural injection group (spinal group). RESULTS: In the CSEA group (24 patients received 1.2 +/- 0.4 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine), 5-10 ml of 2% mepivacaine were required to achieve the adequate surgical anesthesia. In the spinal group (25 patients received 1.6 +/- 0.3 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine), cesarean section was performed without additional mepivacaine before delivery. The analgesic level and the amount of fluid infusion were similar in the two groups. However, 20% of patients in the spinal group showed hypotension (systolic blood pressure below 80 mmHg), although no patients in the CSEA group developed hypotension. The amount of ephedrine used before delivery was significantly larger in the spinal group (8.9 +/- 7.7 mg) than in the CSEA group (3.9 +/- 4.3 mg). CONCLUSIONS: Spinal anesthesia induced by 1.2 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with sequential epidural block induced by 5-10 ml of 2% mepivacaine caused no hypotension during cesarean section.     

Regional anesthesia for cesarean section

Spinal or epidural local anesthetics are common and very reliable ways to provide anesthesia for cesarean section. Regional anesthesia avoids many of the maternal risks associated with general anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia is a good choice for elective cesarean section. In laboring women, epidural analgesia can be readily converted to epidural anesthesia. The combined spinal epidural technique is useful when surgery may be prolonged and in patients who may not tolerate standard doses of intrathecal local anesthetic. This article reviews some technical aspects to consider when performing regional anesthesia for cesarean section. It offers suggested protocols for each of these techniques. Lastly, it discusses two common clinical situations: the inadequate epidural anesthetic and the conversion of labor epidural analgesia to operative epidural anesthesia.     

Comparison of double-segment technique with single-space technique for cesarean section using combined spinal epidural anesthesia

In patients scheduled for cesarean section (c-section) using combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA), we compared the cephalad spreading speed during double-segment technique (DST) with that of single-space technique (SST) of CSEA. In the patients of SST group (n = 169), a 17-G Tuohy needle was introduced at the L 3-4, and then a long spinal needle was inserted through the Tuohy needle. In the patients of DST group (n = 16), a Tuohy needle was introduced at the T 11-12, and a spinal needle was inserted at the L 3-4. After 0.3% hyperbaric dibucaine 1.0 ml was injected through the spinal needle, 1.5% mepivacaine 10 ml was injected through the epidural catheter in both the groups. The analgesic level was measured at 5-min intervals, and blood pressure and complaints of patients were also recorded. The cephalad spread of analgesia was significantly higher in DST group than in SST group at 5 and 10 min after the administration of local anesthetics. Two patients in SST group, epidural catheterization was not possible. There were no difference in the incidences of hypotension, nausea and dyspnea between the groups. We conclude from these results that DST for CSEA is preferable to SST for c-section.     

The effect of obesity on spinal anesthesia for cesarean section]

To evaluate the effect of obesity on spinal anesthesia for cesarean section, we retrospectively studied 90 parturients who had undergone cesarean section, dividing the patients into 2 groups: obesity group (body mass index > 30, n = 41); control group (body mass index < 30, n = 49). Total surgical time and anesthetic time were longer in the obesity group than in the control group. The amount of ephedrine administered was also greater in the obesity group than in the control group. However, there were no significant differences in time for spinal tap and the incidence of hypotension between the two groups. Spinal anesthesia for cesarean section in obese patients may be an acceptable method.     

Epidural injection of lidocaine reduces the response to dural puncture accompanying spinal needle insertion when performing combined spinal-epidural anesthesia

During placement of needles for combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA), patients may experience pain, pressure, paresthesia, or discomfort during skin and deeper injection of local anesthetic, needle impingement on periosteum, dural puncture by the spinal needle, and insertion of the epidural catheter. We investigated the incidence of perception of and spontaneous verbal and motor responses to insertion of a spinal needle through the dura mater and pia mater and the effect of injecting lidocaine into the epidural space through the epidural needle before inserting the spinal needle through the meninges. Forty-three patients presenting for elective cesarean delivery under CSEA were studied. After localization of the epidural space using loss of resistance to air using a 17-gauge Tuohy needle, either 3 mL preservative free normal saline or 3 mL lidocaine 2% plus epinephrine 1:200,000 was injected through the Tuohy needle. "Needle through needle" dural puncture was performed 1 min later using a 27-gauge Whitacre pencil-point needle. At the moment of dural puncture, 2 (9%) parturients given lidocaine and 17 (81%) parturients given saline (P < 0.005) responded to dural puncture by spontaneously moving (33%), spontaneously vocalizing (62%), or, in response to direct questioning, by acknowledging (76%) having perceived sensation during thecal penetration. This study reveals that dural puncture by a Whitacre 27-gauge pencil-point needle inserted through a Tuohy epidural needle sited using loss of resistance to air causes involuntary movement, spontaneous vocalization, or is perceived by the majority of patients presenting for cesarean delivery under CSEA and that lidocaine injected into the epidural space before dural puncture largely eliminates these responses and sensations.     

Discomfort associated with regional anesthetic placement in obstetrics: does alkalinization help?

Lidocaine is commonly used prior to intravenous catheter insertion as well as before instituting a regional anesthetic[ but it often causes a burning discomfort during injection. We undertook this study to determine if the addition of bicarbonate to lidocaine would decrease the discomfort associated with the initiation of regional anesthesia in obstetrics. Forty patients who were scheduled for elective cesarean section or who were in active labor were selected. Lidocaine was prepared before infiltration using 9 ml of preservative-free 1% lidocaine with either 1 ml of preservative-free normal saline or 1 ml of sodium bicarbonate (1 mEq.ml(-1)). A skin wheal was raised with 0.5 ml of the solution; the remainder (1.5 ml) was injected into the deep tissues. Pain was assessed using visual analog scales on three occasions, immediately after lidocaine placement, following introducer needle insertion (in the spinal group) or following epidural needle insertion (in the epidural group), and following the successful placement of the local anesthetic (in the spinal group) or the epidural catheter (in the epidural group). There was no difference in the visual analog scale scores at any of the assessment periods. We found no benefit from adding sodium bicarbonate to lidocaine used for infiltration before needle placement when initiating an obstetrical regional anesthetic.     

Combined subarachnoid-epidural technique for obstetric analgesia

Combined spinal-epidural blockade for labor pain has enjoyed increasing popularity in obstetric anesthesia. The usual procedure is to use a single space and a single needle for dural puncture, inserting a spinal needle through an epidural needle followed by insertion of a catheter. A small dose of one or several substances (usually a lipophilic opioid and a local anesthetic) is first injected in the intrathecal space to provide rapid, effective analgesia with minimal muscle blockade. The epidural catheter is used if labor lasts longer than the spinal block, if the spinal block is insufficient, or in case of cesarean section. Combined spinal-epidural blockade is a safe, valid alternative to conventional epidural analgesia and has become the main technique for providing obstetric analgesia in many hospitals. The most widely-recognized advantage of the technique is high maternal satisfaction with rapid and effective analgesia. Mobility of the lower extremities is preserved and the mother is often able to walk. Because opioids are injected into the intrathecal space and because the technique is more invasive than standard epidural analgesia, the potential risk to mother and fetus increases.     

Effect of injection rate on hypotension associated with spinal anesthesia for cesarean section

Maternal hypotension is a common problem during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. We evaluated in a prospective observational study the influence of injection speed on maternal hypotension. Hyperbaric bupivacaine 10 mg, sufentanil 2 microg and morphine 200 microg (total volume 4 mL) were injected either quickly (<15 s) or slowly (=120 s) in 50 women scheduled for elective cesarean section. Hypotension (systolic arterial pressure (SAP) <100 mmHg or <70% of baseline) was promptly treated with 5 mg ephedrine boluses. Slow injection significantly reduced the incidence of hypotension (68% in the 120 s group and 92% in the other, P =0.03). In addition, onset of hypotension was delayed, had a shorter duration and required less ephedrine for hypotension in the 120 s group (11.6 mg vs. 19.6 mg, P =0.019). Anesthesia was satisfactory for all women. We conclude that a 2 mL/min injection rate may be a simple and effective way to reduce the incidence and severity of hypotension during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia.     

Anesthesia for the parturient with pseudoxanthoma elasticum

We present our experience in the anesthetic management of two parturients with pseudoxanthoma elasticum. The first had an epidural catheter inserted for labor analgesia and ultimately had a forceps delivery. The second had a cesarean section under epidural anesthesia and had a complicated postoperative course. There were no untoward effects of regional anesthesia in either of these two women. The anesthetic implications for parturients with pseudoxanthoma elasticum are discussed.     

Role of repeated epidural injections in preventing post-spinal hearing loss

Study ObjectiveTo determine if epidural volume extension and continued postoperative epidural injections prevent hearing loss associated with a 23-gauge (G) Quincke spinal needle.DesignProspective, double blinded trial.SettingOperating rooms.Patients30 adult patients scheduled for lower abdominal or perineal surgery during spinal anesthesia.InterventionsPatients were divided into two groups of 15 each. All patients received subarachnoid injection with a 23-G Quincke needle. While patients in Group S received a single-shot spinal, Group E patients underwent epidural catheter placement one intervertebral space above. The epidural catheter was bolused with 10 mL of normal saline followed by postoperative epidural boluses of local anesthetic for analgesia as needed.MeasurementsPatients’ auditory function was evaluated by pure tone audiometry (frequencies of 250-8,000 Hz) on the day before and two days after receiving the spinal anesthesia.Main ResultsUnilateral low-frequency hearing loss (500 Hz) was seen in Group S (P < 0.05). It was prevented by the repeated epidural injections as used in Group E.ConclusionFollowing spinal anesthesia, epidural volume extension with 10 mL of normal saline followed by epidural local anesthetic boluses titrated to adequate postoperative analgesia (6-8 mL each time) prevents post-spinal hearing loss.     

Epidural block for obstetrics: Comparison of bolus injection of local anesthetic with gravity flow technique

Study Objective: To test the hypothesis that slow administration of local anesthetic into the epidural space by gravity flow reduces the incidence of signs and symptoms of unintended injection.

Design: Prospective, randomized study.

Setting: Teaching hospital.

Patients: 600 ASA physical status I and II parturients scheduled for labor and delivery or elective cesarean section.

Interventions: After identification of the epidural space with pulsations of an air-fluid column, parturients for vaginal delivery (n = 380) were randomized to receive a test dose of 3 ml 3% 2-chloroprocaine with epinephrine 20 μg, two doses of 7 ml bupivacaine 0.03 % with sufentanil 1 μg/ml and epinephrine 2 μg/ml by either gravity flow (Group 1) given over 30 seconds or by bolus injection (Group 2) given over 5 seconds through the epidural needle; parturients for Cesarean delivery (n = 220) were randomized to receive a test dose and two doses of 6 ml lidocaine 2 % with sufentanil 1 μg/ml and epinephrine 2 μg/ml by either gravity flow or by bolus injection through the epidural needle. Changes in maternal heart rate (HR) and blood pressure, signs of intravascular injection, and adverse effects of epidural bupivacaine-sufentanil were recorded after each dose.

Measurements and Main Results: Gravity flow administration (Group 1) was associated with a smaller increase in mean maternal HR (p < 0.001), less hypotension (p < 0.01), sedation (p < 0.01), nausea (p = 0.01), and segmental spread (p < 0.0001) than were corresponding doses given by traditional bolus injection (Group 1) for vaginal or Cesarean deliveries. The incidence of systemic toxicity was zero of 300 (0%) with gravity flow and 4 of 300 (1.3%) by bolus injection, p = 0.12, Fisher's exact test. No patient in either group had an accidental intrathecal injection.

Conclusion: Gravity flow administration of local anesthetic-opioid solution during epidural block for obstetrics was associated with fewer signs of systemic drug absorption and cardiovascular perturbations than was the traditional bolus injection. This study supports the current opinion that slow administration of local anesthetic during epidural black contributes to fewer adverse events.     

硬膜外预充生理盐水对置管诱发剖宫产术患者硬膜外血管损伤的影响

目的 评价硬膜外预充生理盐水对置管诱发剖宫产术患者硬膜外血管损伤的影响.方法 单胎足月妊娠拟在硬膜外麻醉下行子宫下段剖宫产术的患者150例,ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,年龄27～33岁,体重66～75 kg.随机分为3组(n=50),Ⅰ组直接置入硬膜外导管,Ⅱ组和Ⅲ组在硬膜外置管前通过硬膜外针注射0.9%生理盐水或含肾上腺素(1:200 000)的生理盐水5 ml,注射完后保持注射器压缩针栓20 s,使液体充分扩散.记录置入硬膜外导管时硬膜外穿刺针针尾见淡红色血水、硬膜外导管回抽见淡红色血水、硬膜外导管置入血管(从导管回抽出新鲜血液)的发生情况.结果 与Ⅰ组比较,Ⅱ组和Ⅲ组硬膜外穿刺针针尾见淡红色血水的发生率、硬膜外导管回抽见淡红色血水的发生率和硬膜外导管置入血管的发生率均明显降低(P＜0.01);Ⅱ组和Ⅲ组间上述指标差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论硬膜外预充生理盐水5 ml可有效预防置管诱发剖宫产术患者硬膜外血管的损伤.1∶200 000肾上腺素并不能进一步预防置管诱发的硬膜外血管损伤.     

剖宫产液体治疗的争议

背景 腰麻顿膜外联合麻醉(combined spinal and epidural anesthesia,CSEA)具有用药量小、起效快、阻滞完善且利于术后镇痛等优点,目前广泛应用于剖宫产手术.但产妇孕期生理发生改变,低血压是CSEA剖宫产术最常见的一种并发症.严重的低血压可能会对产妇及胎儿造成不良影响,因此预防低血压在剖宫产术麻醉中显得尤为重要.许多方法被用来防治低血压,目前临床主要运用血管活性药物及液体治疗,但剖宫产围术期液体治疗存在众多争议. 目的 围术期液体治疗的主要目的是维持有效的循环血容量,通过分析当前剖宫产液体治疗的现状,为临床应用提供相关依据. 内容 围绕剖宫产液体治疗的扩容时机、容量治疗需要量或输液速度液体种类三方面进行文献综述. 趋向 单纯晶体液麻醉前扩容对防治低血压的效果最差,基本不提倡,麻醉即刻扩容选择晶体液或是胶体液目前仍然存在争议.目前主要的趋势是联合升压药的使用与液体治疗,可以尽可能减少椎管内麻醉下剖宫产产妇低血压的发生.     

Mechanisms and management of an incomplete epidural block for cesarean section

Epidural blockade is an important option for anesthesia in parturients undergoing abdominal delivery. Despite the multiple benefits of this method, there is at least one significant downside--a relatively high occurrence of unsatisfactory anesthesia that requires intervention. Depending on the presumed mechanism of epidural block failure and other clinically relevant factors (e.g., timing of diagnosis, urgency of the procedure, and so forth), certain effective measures are recommended to successfully manage this demanding situation. In general, it is important to make every effort to make the pre-existing epidural effective or replace it with another regional technique, because overall, regional anesthesia is associated with significantly lower maternal mortality. It is important to identify a dysfunctional epidural block preoperatively before a maximum volume of local anesthetic has been administered. If catheter manipulation does not produce substantial improvement, and there is no time constraint, it is safe and reasonable to replace the epidural catheter. However, risks associated with excessive volume of local anesthetic should be kept in mind. Additional epidural injections or a second catheter placement might be considered under special circumstances. Single-shot spinal anesthesia after a failed epidural may provide fast onset and reliable surgical anesthesia. Available data, although limited and contradictory, suggest the possibility of unpredictably high or total spinal anesthesia. Many authors, however, believe that appropriate precautions and modifications in technique make this a safe alternative. These modifications include limiting the amount of epidural local anesthetic administered when diagnosing a nonfunctioning epidural and decreasing the dose of intrathecal local anesthetic by 20% to 30%. If there is no documented block when the spinal is inserted, and more than 30 minutes have passed from the last epidural dose, it is probably safe to use a normal dose of local anesthetic. Continuous spinal anesthesia with a macro catheter might be a dependable alternative, particularly if large amounts of local anesthetic have already been used or the patient's airway is a cause for concern. Although there are no reports of combined spinal epidural anesthesia being used in this context, it would appear to be an attractive alternative. It allows the anesthesiologist to give smaller doses intrathecally, while still offering the flexibility of augmenting the block if needed. When inadequate epidural block becomes apparent during surgery there are limited alternatives. Depending on the origin and the pattern of inadequate anesthesia, options may include psychological support, supplementation with a variety of inhalational and intravenous agents, and local anesthetic infiltration. Induction of general anesthesia is typically left as a backup option, but must be strongly considered if the patient continues to have pain/discomfort.