Comparison of articaine and bupivacaine/lidocaine for sub-Tenon's anaesthesia in cataract extraction

Background. Articaine is the most widely used local anaestheticfor dental anaesthesia in Germany, Italy and The Netherlandsand has recently been introduced and licensed for dental usein the UK. We have previously shown articaine to be superiorto a standard mixture of bupivacaine 0.5%/lidocaine 2% for peribulbaranaesthesia. Sub-Tenon’s anaesthesia arguably providesa safer method of anaesthetic delivery for cataract surgery.A blunt cannula is used in this technique, thus greatly reducingthe risk of globe perforation, intrathecal injection and sight-threateningperiocular haemorrhage. Methods. We compared articaine and bupivacaine/lidocaine forsub-Tenon’s anaesthesia in cataract surgery. Results. Sub-Tenon’s anaesthesia using articaine 2% resultedin a more rapid onset of motor block compared with a bupivacaine/lidocaine(P=0.0076). Ocular movement scores were significantly lowerfrom 2 min after injection until the end of surgery (P=0.031ANOVA). Conclusion. Articaine 2% is safe and effective for sub-Tenon’sanaesthesia and is a suitable alternative to the traditionalbupivacaine 0.5%/lidocaine 2% mixture. Br J Anaesth 2004; 92: 228–30     

Comparison of L-bupivacaine 0.75% and lidocaine 2% with bupivacaine 0.75% and lidocaine 2% for peribulbar anaesthesia

Background. L-Bupivacaine has a safer side-effect profile thanbupivacaine. We compared the efficacy of a mixture of L-bupivacaine0.75% and lidocaine 2% with bupivacaine 0.75% and lidocaine2% for peribulbar anaesthesia in cataract surgery. Methods. Ninety patients were allocated randomly to receive8 ml of a mixture of equal parts of bupivacaine 0.75% and lidocaine2% or an equal volume of L-bupivacaine and lidocaine 2%. Hyaluronidase15 IU ml^–1 was added to both solutions. Results. There were significant differences between the groupsin clinical end-points. The median time at which the block wasadequate to start surgery was 4 min (interquartile range4–8 min) in the bupivacaine group and 8 min (5–12min) in the L-bupivacaine group (P=0.002). Median ocular andeyelid movement scores were similarly significantly decreasedin the bupivacaine group compared with the L-bupivacaine groupat all times (P0.03). There was no difference between groupsin the incidence of minor complications. Conclusions. A mixture of bupivacaine 0.75% and lidocaine 2%provides faster onset time than a mixture of L-bupivacaine 0.75%and lidocaine 2%. Br J Anaesth 2003; 90: 512–14     

Articaine versus lidocaine plus bupivacaine for peribulbar anaesthesia in cataract surgery

Background. We compared the efficacy and safety of articaine2% with a mixture of lidocaine 2% and bupivacaine 0.5% withouthyaluronidase for peribulbar anaesthesia in cataract surgery. Method. In this double-blind randomized clinical study, 58 cataractpatients were allocated to receive either articaine 2% withepinephrine 1:200 000 or a mixture of equal parts of lidocaine2% with epinephrine 1.25:100 000 and bupivacaine 0.5%. Ocularand eyelid movement scores, the number of supplementary injections,total volume of solution used and pain and complications duringinjection and surgery were used as clinical end-points. Results. Articaine produced greater akinesia after 5 min (P=0.03).Eighteen patients (60%) in the articaine group and 26 (93%)in the lidocaine/bupivacaine group required a second injection(P=0.003). A third injection was needed by two patients (7%)in the articaine group and 12 (43%) in the lidocaine/bupivacainegroup (P=0.001). The total mean volume of local anaestheticrequired to achieve akinesia was mean 9.4 (SD 1.7) ml in thearticaine group and 11.28 (1.86) ml in the lidocaine/bupivacainegroup (P<0.001). Median pain score was lower in the articainegroup than in lidocaine/bupivacaine group during injection (P=0.004)and surgery (P=0.014). There was no difference between the groupsfor the incidence of complications. Conclusion. Articaine 2% without hyaluronidase is more advantageousthan a mixture of lidocaine 2% and bupivacaine 0.5% withouthyaluronidase for peribulbar anaesthesia in cataract surgery. Br J Anaesth 2004; 92: 231–4     

Hyperbaric articaine for day-case spinal anaesthesia

Background. Articaine and lidocaine are clinically very similarsuggesting that articaine could be suitable for day-case spinalanaesthesia. A dose–response study with articaine in ambulatoryspinal anaesthesia was therefore performed. Methods. In this randomized double-blind study, 90 day-casesurgery patients received spinal anaesthesia with 60 mg (A60),84 mg (A84) or 108 mg (A108) of hyperbaric articaine hydrochloride.Sensory block was tested with pinprick and motor block on amodified Bromage scale. A structured interview was performedon the first and seventh postoperative days. Results. Sensory block reached the T₁₀ dermatome in a median(range) of 5 (5–10) and was maintained at this level for70 (35–145), 70 (15–115) and 85 (20–115) minin the A60, A84 and A108 groups, respectively. Six patientsin the A108 group, two in the A84 group and one in the A60 grouphad maximum spread of analgesia to T₁ or higher (NS). Patientsin the A108 group needed more medication for hypotension (P=0.018),had more often nausea and vomiting (P=0.027), took oral fluidslater (P=0.031) and both sensory block recovery [median (range)][2.5 (2–4.5) h] (P=0.017) and motor block recovery [2(1.3–4) h] (P=0.009) were delayed. No patients in theA108 group needed opioid intraoperatively while fentanyl wasneeded in 5 (17%) and 2 (7%) patients in the A60 and A84 groups,respectively. Discharge criteria were attained in approximately4.5 h after articaine injection (NS) and no drug-related sequelaewere observed. Conclusions. Hyperbaric articaine 60 and 84 mg resulted in spinalanaesthesia allowing surgery of the lower extremities for about1 h. Recovery was rapid. Use of 108 mg of articaine is not recommendedbecause of frequent extensive cephalad spread of the block,accompanied by arterial hypotension and nausea.     

Spinal anaesthesia with articaine 5% vs bupivacaine 0.5% for day-case lower limb surgery: a double-blind randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND: A local anaesthetic with fast onset and short reliable duration of anaesthesia may be preferable for out-patient lower limb surgery. Articaine is believed to act faster and to have a shorter duration of action than bupivacaine, but there are no conclusive data available. The purpose of this study was to compare articaine and bupivacaine for day-case lower limb surgery. METHODS: Eighty patients planned for day-case lower limb surgery enrolled in this study. Patients were randomized to receive hyperbaric articaine 80 mg or plain bupivacaine 15 mg intrathecally. Primary outcome variable was recovery time from motor block. Secondary outcomes were: onset of sensory and motor block, maximum spread of sensory block, time to micturition, discharge from the hospital, and complications. RESULTS: The groups were comparable for the medians and the range of the maximum blocks after 30 min. Median time to complete regression of motor block was 101 min (range 80-129) for articaine compared with 307 min (range 225-350) for bupivacaine (P<0.0005). First spontaneous micturition occurred after 257 min (210-293) in the articaine group and after 350 min (304-370) in the bupivacaine group (P<0.0005). In the articaine and bupivacaine groups, patients were discharged after 300 min (273-347) and 380 min (332-431), respectively (P<0.0005). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of complications between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal anaesthesia with 80 mg of hyperbaric articaine has a shorter duration than a spinal anaesthesia with 15 mg of plain bupivacaine in lower limb surgery of approximately 1 h duration.     

Comparison of 0.75% levobupivacaine with 0.75% racemic bupivacaine for peribulbar anaesthesia

In a single centre, randomised, double-blind study 50 patients scheduled for intra-ocular surgery received 0.75% levobupivacaine or 0.75% racemic bupivacaine for peribulbar anaesthesia. There were no significant differences in the mean (SD) volume of levobupivacaine (11 (2.7) ml) or racemic bupivacaine (10 (2.6) ml) required, time to satisfactory block (levobupivacaine-13 (5.6) min; racemic bupivacaine-11 (4.4) min), peri-operative pain scores or frequency of adverse events between levobupivacaine and racemic bupivacaine. The safer side-effect profile of levobupivacaine may offer significant advantages in the elderly population undergoing cataract extraction in whom intercurrent disease is common.     

Efficacy of varying concentrations of hyaluronidase in peribulbar anaesthesia

We have compared the efficacy of adding varying concentrationsof hyaluronidase to a standard mixture of 2% lidocaine and 1%ropivacaine to provide peribulbar anaesthesia for cataract surgery.We used (i) the time to adequate anaesthesia for surgery and(ii) ocular and eyelid movement scores at 8 min after blockas clinical endpoints. Ninety patients were randomly allocatedto receive 7–10 ml of equal volumes of 2% lidocaine and1% ropivacaine without hyaluronidase or with hyaluronidase 15IU ml^–1or 150 IU ml^–1. Median time at which theblock was adequate for surgery was 6 min in all groups (interquartilerange 4–12 min). Median eyelid movement scores were similarin all groups, but the ocular movement scores at 8 min weresignificantly lower in the group which received hyaluronidase150 IU ml^–1 than in the group not given hyaluronidase(P<0.03). There were no differences between groups in theincidence of minor complications. A high concentration of hyaluronidaseresulted in a statistically significantly lower ocular movementscore at 8 min; the clinical relevance of this finding is uncertain. Br J Anaesth 2001; 86: 876–8     

Early exploration of diplopia with magnetic resonance imaging after peribulbar anaesthesia

We report the cases of five patients who have experienced postoperativediplopia after cataract surgery under peribulbar anaesthesiaand in whom orbital Magnetic Resonance Imaging was performedimmediately after the diagnosis. In four patients, the imagingstudy showed a T2 hyper-intensity signal and swelling of oneextraocular muscle that was interpreted as oedema. Therefore,these cases were most probably a result of an accidental i.m.injection of local anaesthetics. In the other patient, the imagingstudy revealed no abnormality. Br J Anaesth 2004; 92: 899–901     

An evaluation of two concentrations of hyaluronidase for supplementation of peribulbar anaesthesia

We studied the effect of the addition of hyaluronidase to a mixture of lignocaine 2% and bupivacaine 0.75% for peribulbar anaesthesia in 60 patients presenting for elective intra-ocular surgery. Using a randomised, double-blind design, patients were allocated to one of three groups: no hyaluronidase (group A) (n = 20); hyaluronidase 50 iu.ml^-1 (group B) (n = 20); hyaluronidase 150 iu.ml^-1 (group C) (n = 20). The speed of onset of the block, the presence of akinesia, analgesia and the need for supplementary injections were assessed. The addition of 150 iu.ml^-1 of hyaluronidase resulted in a mean (SEM) time to akinesia of 9.2 (0.9) min compared to 10.9 (0.9) min in the control group and 10.7 (1.1) min in those receiving the lower dose. Fewer patients in group C required a further injection (20%) than those in groups A (40%) or B (45%). None of the findings were statistically significant. Hyaluronidase was not associated with any complications.     

Comparison of articaine and bupivacaine/lidocaine for peribulbar anaesthesia by inferotemporal injection

Background. Articaine is a novel amide local anaesthetic witha shorter duration of action than prilocaine. Methods. In a randomized, double-blind study we compared theefficacy of 2% articaine with epinephrine 1:200 000 with a mixtureof 0.5% bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:200000 for peribulbar anaesthesia in cataract surgery using a singleinferotemporal injection. Eighty-two patients were randomlyallocated to one of two groups to receive peribulbar anaesthesiawith 6–7 ml of articaine or a bupivacaine/lidocaine mixture.Both solutions contained hyaluronidase 30 iu ml^–1. Ocularmovement was scored at 2 min intervals up to 10 min, at theend of surgery and at time of discharge from hospital. Timeto readiness for surgery and any complications (proptosis, chemosis,pain) were recorded. Results. The articaine group demonstrated a rapid onset of peribulbarblock with mean time (SD) to readiness for surgery of 4.2 (4.5)min compared with 7.2 (5.7) min in the bupivacaine/lidocainegroup (P=0.0095). The block obtained in the articaine groupwas dense with eye movement scores at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 minall significantly reduced (P<0.01 at each interval). Therewas also a faster offset of the block in the articaine group(P=0.0009). There was no difference in incidence of minor complicationsbetween the groups. Conclusions. Two per cent articaine is safe and effective forperibulbar anaesthesia by inferotemporal injection and is asuitable alternative to the traditional mixture of 0.5% bupivacaineand 2% lidocaine. Br J Anaesth 2002; 88: 676–8     

Comparison of ropivacaine 0.5% (in glucose 5%) with bupivacaine 0.5% (in glucose 8%) for spinal anaesthesia for elective surgery

Background. Hyperbaric solutions of ropivacaine have been usedsuccessfully to provide spinal anaesthesia. This study was designedto compare the clinical efficacy of hyperbaric ropivacaine withthat of the commercially available hyperbaric preparation ofbupivacaine. Methods. Forty ASA grade I–II patients undergoing lower-abdominal,perineal or lower-limb surgery under spinal anaesthesia wererecruited and randomized to receive ropivacaine 5 mg ml^–1(with glucose 50 mg ml^–1), 3 ml or bupivacaine 5 mg ml^–1(with glucose 80 mg ml^–1), 3 ml. The level and durationof sensory block, intensity and duration of motor block, andtime to mobilize and micturate were recorded. Patients wereinterviewed at 24 h and at 1 week to identify any residual problems. Results. All blocks were adequate for the proposed surgery,but there were significant differences between the two groupsin mean time to onset of sensory block at T10 (ropivacaine 5min; bupivacaine 2 min; P<0.005), median maximum extent (ropivacaineT7; bupivacaine T5; P<0.005) and mean duration of sensoryblock at T10 (ropivacaine 56.5 min; bupivacaine 118 min; P=0.001).Patients receiving ropivacaine mobilized sooner (ropivacainemean 253.5 min; bupivacaine 331 min; P=0.002) and passed urinesooner (ropivacaine mean 276 min; bupivacaine 340.5 min; P=0.01)than those receiving bupivacaine. More patients in the bupivacainegroup required treatment for hypotension (>30% decrease insystolic pressure; P=0.001). Conclusions. Ropivacaine 15 mg in glucose 50 mg ml^–1 providesreliable spinal anaesthesia of shorter duration and with lesshypotension than bupivacaine. The recovery profile for ropivacainemay be of interest given that more surgery is being performedin the day-case setting. Br J Anaesth 2003; 90: 304–8     

Comparison of the effects of intrathecal ropivacaine, levobupivacaine, and bupivacaine for Caesarean section

Background. This study aimed to detect if intrathecal (i.t.)ropivacaine and levobupivacaine provided anaesthesia (satisfactoryanalgesia and muscular relaxation) and postoperative analgesiaof similar quality to bupivacaine in patients undergoing Caesareansection. Methods. Ninety parturients were enrolled. A combined spinal-epiduraltechnique was used. Patients were randomly assigned to receiveone of the following isobaric i.t. solutions: bupivacaine 8mg (n=30), levobupivacaine 8 mg (n=30), or ropivacaine 12 mg(n=30), all combined with sufentanil 2.5 µg. An i.t. solutionwas considered effective if an upper sensory level to pinprickof T4 or above was achieved and if intraoperative epidural supplementationwas not required. Sensory changes and motor changes were recorded. Results. Anaesthesia was effective in 97, 80, and 87% of patientsin the bupivacaine 8 mg, levobupivacaine 8 mg, and ropivacaine12 mg groups, respectively. Bupivacaine 8 mg was associatedwith a significantly superior success rate to that observedin the levobupivacaine group (P<0.05). It also provided alonger duration of analgesia and motor block (P<0.05 vs levobupivacaineand ropivacaine). Conclusions. The racemic mixture of bupivacaine combined withsufentanil remains an appropriate choice when performing Caesareansections under spinal anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2003; 91: 684–9     

Efficacy and uptake of ropivacaine and bupivacaine after single intra-articular injection in the knee joint

The efficacy of ropivacaine 100 mg (5 mg ml^–1),150 mg (7.5 mg ml^–1) and 200 mg (10 mg ml^–1)and bupivacaine 100 mg (5 mg ml^–1) givenby intra-articular injection into the knee after the end ofsurgery was studied in 72 ASA I–II patients scheduledfor elective knee arthroscopy under general anaesthesia in arandomized, double-blind study. Kapake (paracetamol 1 gand codeine 60 mg) was given as a supplementary analgesic.Pain scores were assessed 1–4 h after surgery and a verbalrating scale of overall pain severity was assessed on secondpostoperative day. Ropivacaine or bupivacaine concentrationswere determined in peripheral venous plasma up to 3 h afterinjection in eight patients in each group. Verbal rating painscores were lower with ropivacaine 150 mg compared withbupivacaine 100 mg (P<0.05). There was a tendency forlower analgesic consumption and pain scores with all doses ofropivacaine (not significant). The mean (SD) maximum total plasmaconcentrations of ropivacaine were 0.64 (0.25), 0.78 (0.43),and 1.29 (0.46) mg litre^–1 after 100, 150 and200 mg. The corresponding unbound concentrations were 0.018(0.009), 0.024 (0.020) and 0.047 (0.022) mg litre^–1.Both were proportional to the dose. The maximum total concentrationafter bupivacaine 100 mg was 0.57 (0.36) mg litre^–1.The time to reach maximum plasma concentration was similar forall doses and varied between 20 and 180 min. All concentrationswere well below the threshold for systemic toxicity. Br J Anaesth 2001; 87: 570–6     

Comparison of hyperbaric and plain ropivacaine 15 mg in spinal anaesthesia for lower limb surgery

Background. Previously, plain ropivacaine 15 mg given intrathecallyhas been shown to be feasible for ambulatory surgery of lower-extremities.Hypothetically, hyperbaric solution could improve and shortenthe block. Methods. This prospective, randomized, double-blind study included56 patients undergoing surgery of lower extremities. They receivedintrathecally either 1.5 ml of ropivacaine 10 mg ml^–1and 0.5 ml of glucose 300 mg ml^–1 (HYP) or 2 ml of ropivacaine7.5 mg ml^–1 (PL). Results. All patients in Group HYP achieved T₁₀ dermatome analgesiabut only 64% (18/28) of Group PL. T₁₀ analgesia was reachedin 5 min (median, range 5–20 min) in the HYP group vs10 min (5–45 min) in the PL group (P=0.022), and fullmotor block in 10 min (5–45 min) vs 20 min (5–60min) (P=0.003), respectively. Group HYP had a longer durationof analgesia at T₁₀; 83 min (5–145 min) vs 33 min (0–140min) (P=0.004). Duration of sensory block from injection ofthe anesthetic to complete recovery was shorter in Group HYPthan in Group PL, 210 min (120–270 min) vs 270 min (210–360min) (P<0.001), as was duration of motor block, 120 min (5–150min) vs 210 min (120–330 min) (P<0.001). Patients ofGroup HYP attained discharge criteria earlier than those ofGroup PL (P=0.009). Conclusion. In comparison with the plain solution, 15 mg ofintrathecal hyperbaric ropivacaine produced a faster onset,greater success rate of analgesia at the level of T₁₀ dermatome,and faster recovery of the block.     

Ropivacaine in peribulbar block: a comparative study with bupivacaine

BACKGROUND: Ropivacaine is a new local anesthetic with alleged lower systemic toxicity and slightly lower potency as compared with bupivacaine. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ropivacaine in peribulbar block, as compared with that of bupivacaine. METHODS: Eighty patients aged 45-92 years with physical status ASA I, II, or III were randomized to Group R (n=40) or Group B (n=40). Group R received 8.0 ml of 1.0% ropivacaine and Group B received 8.0 ml of 0.75% bupivacaine, both solutions with 50 IU/ml hyaluronidase, to induce peribulbar block according to the double-injection technique. Decreased ocular motility was the only criterion of successful block. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with decreased ocular motility showing successful block was higher in Group R 1 and 5 min after injection. A score indicating successful peribulbar block was found in all patients 10 min after injection. While no patient complained of a burning sensation during ropivacaine injection, 22.5% of the patients given bupivacaine reported this symptom. CONCLUSION: Both local anesthetics were effective in inducing peribulbar block for intraocular surgery. A tendency was noted to a faster onset of peribulbar block with ropivacaine; nevertheless, both drugs had a high degree of success for this block.     

Venous levels of lignocaine and bupivacaine after peribulbar block

Twenty-five patients undergoing elective cataract day surgery were studied after receiving a dual-injection peribulbar block with a mixture consisting of equal volumes of 2% lignocaine and 0.75% bupivacaine with hyaluronidase. A maximum of 10ml of solution was used for the initial block; supplementary injections of up to 10 ml were given to five patients. Venous blood was taken prior to the block and then 1, 10, 20, 30, 60 and 90 min after the block. The peak mean concentrations of lignocaine (0.722 μg. ml⁻¹) and bupivacaine (0.353 μg. ml⁻¹)were found at 10–20 min after injection when no top-up was given and at 10 min after the top-up injection when required. All measured serum concentrations of lignocaine and bupivacaine were below the accepted toxic levels of the two drugs. However, the highest individual toxicity score after a top-up was 0.915 which was very close to the toxicity threshold (= 1) when a scoring system was used to assess the combined levels.     

Spinal anaesthesia for Caesarean section with bupivacaine 5 mg ml(-1) in glucose 8 or 80 mg ml(-1)

The standard spinal preparation of bupivacaine contains a highconcentration of glucose (80 mg ml^–1). However,the addition of only a small amount of glucose (8 mg ml^–1)to plain solutions of bupivacaine results in a solution which,although no more than marginally hyperbaric, produces a morepredictable block when used for spinal anaesthesia in non-pregnantpatients. However, bupivacaine 5 mg ml^–1 inglucose 8 mg ml^–1 has a density [1.00164 (SD0.00008) at 37°C] which is relatively greater than thatof the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of the pregnant patient atterm (1.0003 at 37°C) because CSF density decreases duringpregnancy. Therefore, a double-blind, randomized, controlledstudy was carried out to compare intrathecal bupivacaine (glucose8 mg ml^–1) with bupivacaine (glucose 80 mg ml^–1)in 40 pregnant patients at term. Although there was no differencebetween groups in onset of sensory block, dose of ephedrineor patient satisfaction, patients receiving bupivacaine (5 mg ml^–1)with glucose (8 mg ml^–1) had persistently highersensory blocks between 60 and 120 min after intrathecalinjection, suggesting that the spread of spinal solutions inthe pregnant patient at term is not dependent on density. Br J Anaesth 2001; 86: 805–7     

The effects of volume and speed of injection in peribulbar anaesthesia

We have evaluated the effects of the volume and speed of administration of local anaesthetic during peribulbar anaesthesia. One hundred and forty patients scheduled for cataract surgery were randomly allocated to one of four groups of 35. Each patient received an injection of the same mixture of lignocaine, bupivacaine and hyaluronidase. Patients in group A were given 9 ml at a speed of 5 mlmin⁻¹, group B were given the same volume at 12 mlmin⁻¹, group C were given 13.5 ml at 5 mlmin⁻¹ and group D were given 13.5 ml at 12 mlmin⁻¹. A significantly higher incidence of satisfactory akinesia was found in group D, whose pain score at injection was no higher than for the other groups. Large volumes of local anaesthetic significantly affected intra-ocular pressure. The incidences of early and late ptosis or diplopia were not affected by either the rate of injection or the volume of local anaesthetic.     

Comparison of 1% and 2% lidocaine epidural anaesthesia combined with sevoflurane general anaesthesia utilizing a constant bispectral index

Background. The authors compared the effects of epidural anaesthesiawith lidocaine 1% and lidocaine 2% on haemodynamic variables,sevoflurane requirements, and stress hormone responses duringsurgery under combined epidural/general anaesthesia with bispectralindex score (BIS) kept within the range 40–50. Methods. Thirty-three patients undergoing lower abdominal surgerywere randomly divided into two groups to receive lidocaine 1%or 2% by epidural with sevoflurane general anaesthesia. Sevofluranewas adjusted to achieve a target BIS of 40–50 during maintenanceof anaesthesia with nitrous oxide 60% in oxygen. Measurementsincluded the inspired (FI_SEVO) and the end-tidal sevofluraneconcentrations (E'_SEVO), blood pressure (BP), and heart rate(HR) before surgery and every 5 min during surgery for2 h. Plasma samples were taken immediately before and duringsurgery for measurements of catecholamines, cortisol, and lidocaine. Results. During surgery, both groups were similar for HR, BPand BIS, but FI_SEVO and E'_SEVO were significantly higher andmore variable with lidocaine 1% than with 2%. Intraoperativeplasma concentrations of epinephrine and cortisol were foundto be higher with lidocaine 1% as compared with 2%. Conclusions. To maintain BIS of 40–50 during combinedepidural/general anaesthesia for lower abdominal surgery, sevofluraneconcentrations were lower and less variable with lidocaine 2%than with 1%. In addition, the larger concentration of lidocainesuppressed the stress hormone responses better. Br J Anaesth 2003; 91: 825–9