General anaesthesia or spinal anaesthesia for outpatient urological surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A variety of drugs and techniques have been introduced into ambulatory anaesthesia. The technique as well as the drugs used may hasten or delay home discharge. We compared recovery profiles and side-effects of spinal anaesthesia and total intravenous anaesthesia. METHODS: Forty unpremedicated ASA I-II patients (18-65 yr) undergoing varicocele repair were randomly divided into two groups. Spinal anaesthesia (26-G atraumatic needle) with hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% 5 mg and fentanyl 25 microg were given to patients in Group Spinal (n = 20). Patients in Group TIVA (n = 20) received total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and remifentanil given by continuous infusion; a laryngeal mask was used to secure the airway. The duration of surgery, time to home readiness and side-effects were recorded. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable with respect to patients' characteristics and duration of surgery. The times to achieve ambulation were similar between groups (Spinal = 78.4 +/- 40.9 min, TIVA = 75.9 +/- 13.8 min). Urinary voiding was a requirement for discharge after spinal anaesthesia and the time for home readiness was longer in Group Spinal (158.0 +/- 40.2 versus 94.9 +/- 18.8 min) (P < 0.05). Two patients reported pruritus and one reported postdural puncture headache in Group Spinal, whereas two patients reported nausea in Group TIVA. Patients in Group TIVA had a greater need for analgesia postoperation (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In healthy unpremedicated men undergoing minor urological operations, total intravenous anaesthesia with remifentanil and propofol provided as safe and effective anaesthesia as spinal block with the advantage of earlier home readiness.     

Spinal anesthesia for arthroscopic knee surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to compare the effects of adding 50 microg of morphine, 25 microg of fentanyl or saline to 6 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine on postoperative analgesia and time to urination in patients undergoing arthroscopic knee surgery under spinal anesthesia. METHODS: The study was designed in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded and placebo-controlled manner. Sixty ASA I-II patients were randomized into the following three groups: Group BM: 6 mg of bupivacaine and 50 microg of morphine, Group BF: 6 mg of bupivacaine and 25 microg of fentanyl, and Group BS: 6 mg of bupivacaine and saline. Selective spinal anesthesia was performed in a lateral decubitus position, with the operative knee dependent for 10 min. RESULTS: In all groups satisfactory anesthesia was provided during the operation. There was a statistically significant difference between all the groups in times to voiding [Group BM 422 +/- 161 min; Group BF 244 +/- 163 min; Group BS 183 +/- 54 min (mean +/- SD)]. The incidence of pruritus was significantly greater in Group BM (80%) and BF (65%) in comparison with Group BS (no pruritus) (P < 0.05). The incidence of nausea was significantly increased in Group BM (35%) in comparison with Group BF (10%) and Group BS (P < 0.05). Analgesic consumption was significantly greater in Group BS in comparison with Groups BM and BF (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that during spinal anesthesia even mini-dose intrathecal morphine is not acceptable for outpatient surgery due to side-effects, especially severely prolonged time to urination.     

Intrathecal anesthesia for elderly patients undergoing short transurethral procedures: a dose-finding study

One hundred elderly men (> or =65 yr) undergoing transurethral procedures (<45 min) received bupivacaine 7.5 mg, or bupivacaine 5 mg + fentanyl 20 mug, or bupivacaine 4 mg + fentanyl 20 mug, or bupivacaine 3 mg + fentanyl 20 mug, intrathecally. Intraoperative "rescue" fentanyl requirements were higher (P < 0.03) in group bupivacaine 3 mg + fentanyl. Times (min) to ambulation eligibility were decreased in a dose-dependant manner (157 +/- 50 vs 147 +/- 37 vs 128 +/- 40 vs 116 +/- 29, respectively). Of the techniques studied, intrathecal bupivacaine 4 mg + fentanyl 20 mug provided adequate analgesia and was associated with hemodynamic stability and a favorable recovery profile.     

Analgesia and discharge following preincisional ilioinguinal and iliohypogastric nerve block combined with general or spinal anaesthesia for inguinal herniorrhaphy

BACKGROUND: Preincisional ilioinguinal and iliohypogastric nerve block (IINB) reduces postoperative analgesics after inguinal herniorrhaphy. The effect of an IINB on postoperative pain and discharge profile was therefore studied in day-surgery patients undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy with general or spinal anaesthesia. METHODS: Seventy ASA I-II adult patients scheduled for inguinal herniorrhaphy received an IINB before the surgical incision with 15 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine. In a randomized fashion half of them received general anaesthesia with spontaneous breathing via a laryngeal mask (GA-group) and the other half received spinal anaesthesia with 5 mg of bupivacaine diluted with sterile water to 2.5-ml volume (SPIN-group). In the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU), pain was assessed on a scale from 0 to 10 (VAS) and ketorolac 30 mg i.v. (VAS < 5), or fentanyl 0.05 mg i.v. (VAS > or = 5) was administered as scheduled. In the day surgery unit and at home the analgesic was a tablet of ibuprofen 200 mg + codeine 30 mg (VAS > or = 3). RESULTS: Patients in the SPIN-group reported lower postoperative pain scores at 30, 60 min (P < 0.0001) and 120 min (P < 0.05) after surgery, and longer time to first analgesic use (P < 0.0001). Patients in the GA-group had a shorter time to discharge without voiding (P < 0.001) and with voiding (P < 0.05). After discharge, there were no significant differences between the groups regarding pain scores at rest and at walking, or the doses of analgesic. Adverse events were rare in both groups. CONCLUSION: Only a relatively short immediate analgesic benefit could be demonstrated by a combination of IINB with spinal anaesthesia compared with IINB combined with general anaesthesia. The use of general anaesthesia facilitated an earlier postoperative discharge than spinal anaesthesia.     

Spinal 2-chloroprocaine: a comparison with small-dose bupivacaine in volunteers

Ambulatory surgery continues to increase nationwide. Because spinal lidocaine is associated with transient neurologic symptoms, many clinicians have switched to small-dose bupivacaine for outpatient spinal anesthesia. However, bupivacaine often produces inadequate surgical anesthesia and has an unpredictable duration. Preservative-free 2-chloroprocaine (2-CP) has reemerged as an alternative for outpatient spinal anesthesia. We designed this double-blind, randomized, crossover, volunteer study to compare 40 mg of 2-CP with small-dose (7.5 mg) bupivacaine with measures of pinprick anesthesia, motor strength, tolerance to tourniquet and electrical stimulation, and simulated discharge criteria. Peak block height (2-CP average T7 [range T3-10]; bupivacaine average T9 [range T4-L1]), regression to L1 (2-CP 64 +/- 10 versus bupivacaine 87 +/- 41 min), and tourniquet tolerance (2-CP 52 +/- 11 versus bupivacaine 60 +/- 27 min) did not differ between drugs (P = 0.15, 0.12, and 0.40, respectively). However, time to simulated discharge (including time to complete block regression, ambulation, and spontaneous voiding) was significantly longer with bupivacaine (2-CP 113 +/- 14, bupivacaine 191 +/- 30 min, P = 0.0009). No subjects reported transient neurologic symptoms or other side effects. We conclude that spinal 2-CP provides adequate duration and density of block for ambulatory surgical procedures, and has significantly faster resolution of block and return to ambulation compared with 7.5 mg of bupivacaine.     

Comparison of total intravenous anesthesia and sevoflurane-fentanyl anesthesia for outpatient otorhinolaryngeal surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the recovery characteristics of two widely used anesthetic techniques: remifentanyl-propofol and sevoflurane-fentanyl in a standardized ambulatory population.DESIGN: Randomized, single-blinded study. SETTING: University-affiliated medical center. PATIENTS: 50 ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing elective ambulatory otorhinolaryngeal surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized two groups to receive total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA group) with remifentanil and propofol or sevoflurane-fentanyl (SF group). TIVA patients received induction with propofol 1.5 mg/kg intravenously (IV) and remifentanil 0.5 microg/kg IV. The anesthesia was continued with a continuous infusion of propofol 100 microg/kg/min and remifentanil 0.0625-0.25 microg/kg/min. The SF group received, at induction, fentanyl 2 microg/kg followed by propofol 1.5 mg/kg IV. Maintenance was obtained with 1 to 1.5 minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane and bolus of fentanyl 1 microg/kg IV as needed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Early recovery times (eye opening, response to commands, extubation, orientation, operating room stay after surgery, and Aldrete score > or =9) and patient satisfaction were similar between the two groups. Postanesthetic discharge scoring system (PADSS) > or = 9 was significantly shorter for the TIVA group (135.9 +/- 51 vs. 103 +/- 32 min) (p < 0.01) but this difference was not associated with a shorter postanesthesia care unit (PACU) length of stay. CONCLUSION: Early recovery times are comparable between total intravenous anesthesia and sevoflurane-based anesthesia. Even though patients in the TIVA group achieved home readiness criteria in a significantly shorter time, this technique does not shorten PACU length of stay, which depends instead on multiple nonmedical and administrative issues.     

Spinal anesthesia for endoscopic urological surgery--low dose vs. varying doses of hyperbaric bupivacaine

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the efficiency of low dose vs. varying doses of hyperbaric bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for endoscopic urological procedures. METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients were studied in a randomized prospective manner. They received either of 5 (Gr I), 7.5 (Gr II) or 10 mg (Gr III) of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% combined with 25 microg of fentanyl, through a 25-gauge W hitacre spinal needle placed in the L3-L4 interspace. Characteristics of sensory and motor block, dose of ephedrine required, secondary effects, the patients, and the surgeons satisfaction, were noted. RESULTS: The maximum number of blocked segments was 14 +/- 1 (Gr I), 15 +/- 2 (Gr II) and 16 +/- 2 (Gr III). Time to T12 regression was significantly shorter for Gr I (53 +/- 13 min) than for Gr II (69 +/- 20 min) or Gr III (94 +/- 14 min). Bromage 3 block was not found in Gr I compared to 4 patients in Gr II and 15 patients in Gr III. The duration of motor block was shorter in Gr 1(51 +/- 18 min) than in Gr II (86 +/- 19 min) and in Gr III (138 +/- 21 min). Ephedrine was used for 16 patients in Gr III (9.8 +/- 12.2 mg), 5 patients in Gr II (3.7 +/- 7.8 mg) and 2 patients in Gr I (0.5 +/- 1.5 mg). The difference is statistically significant between Gr III and the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the use of a low dose of bupivacaine (5 mg) added to fentanyl (25 microg) for endoscopic urological surgery, resulted in short-acting sensory block, without motor block and a lower incidence of cardiovascular side effects, as compared to either of 7.5 or 10 mg bupivacaine with 25 microg fentanyl.     

A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of unilateral spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine, ropivacaine, or levobupivacaine for inguinal herniorrhaphy

In 60 patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair, we compared the clinical profile of unilateral spinal anesthesia produced with either 8 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% (n = 20), 8 mg of hyperbaric levobupivacaine 0.5% (n = 20), or 12 mg of hyperbaric ropivacaine 0.5% (n = 20). The study drug was injected slowly through a 25-gauge Whitacre directional needle and patients maintained the lateral decubitus position for 15 min. The onset time and intraoperative efficacy were similar in the three groups. The maximal level of sensory block on the operative and nonoperative sides was T6 (T12-5) and L3 (/[no sensory level detectable]-T4) with bupivacaine, T8 (T12-5) and L3 (/-T3) with levobupivacaine, T5 (T10-2) and T11 (/-T3) with ropivacaine (P = 0.11, P = 0.23, respectively). Complete regression of spinal anesthesia occurred after 166 +/- 42 min with ropivacaine, 210 +/- 63 min with levobupivacaine, and 190 +/- 51 min with bupivacaine (P = 0.03 and P = 0.04, respectively); however, no differences were observed in time for home discharge (329 +/- 89 min with bupivacaine, 261 +/- 112 min with levobupivacaine, and 332 +/- 57 min with ropivacaine [P = 0.28]). We conclude that 8 mg of levobupivacaine or 12 mg of ropivacaine are acceptable alternatives to 8 mg of bupivacaine when limiting spinal block at the operative side for inguinal hernia repair.     

胸段硬膜外复合静脉全麻与全凭静脉麻醉在开胸手术中的比较

目的 比较胸段硬膜外复合静脉全麻与全凭静脉麻醉对开胸手术患者血流动力学、麻醉药维持剂量、术后苏醒、躁动及疼痛的影响.方法 64例择期行剖胸手术患者,ASA Ⅱ级～Ⅲ级,采用完全随机设计的方法分为2组.A组:胸段硬膜外复合静脉全麻组,患者预先用10 ml 0.25%布比卡因和0.1 mg芬太尼硬膜外给药.术中硬膜外0.25%布比卡因和芬太尼10μg/ml,5 ml/h复合丙泊酚维持.B组:全凭静脉麻醉组,丙泊酚-端芬太尼全凭静脉麻醉.观察并记录不同时间点2组心率(HR)、平均动脉压(MAP)、中心静脉压(CVP)、所需麻醉维持药量、术毕清醒及出现疼痛时间.结果 2组患者各观察点血流动力学变化比较,差异无统计学意义;胸段硬膜外复合静脉全麻组麻醉维持不需要静脉镇痛药瑞芬太尼和肌松药阿曲库铵,只需复合充分的丙泊酚镇静,就能满足手术需求;术后苏醒早;拔管时间(11±4)min,相对于全凭静脉麻醉组(23±16)min明显缩短(P<0.05):躁动例数显著减少;术后出现疼痛时间(7.4±2.6)min相对于全凭静脉麻醉组(0.5士0.3)min明显延长(P<0.01).结论 胸段硬膜外复合静脉全麻用于开胸手术快通道麻醉是一种安全、经济、有效并有利于患者术后恢复的麻醉方法.     

Prophylactic ondansetron reduces the incidence of intrathecal fentanyl-induced pruritus

We investigated the effectiveness of prophylactic IV ondansetron in preventing intrathecal fentanyl-induced pruritus. One-hundred-fifty ASA status I-II patients undergoing spinal anesthesia with 7-10 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine and 25 micro g of fentanyl were randomized to receive ondansetron 8 mg IV or normal saline IV before the commencement of spinal anesthesia. Evaluations were performed every 15 min in the first hour after the injection of study drugs and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 h after the administration of the study drug. Statistical analysis was performed by using chi(2) tests and Student's t-test, as appropriate. The incidence of pruritus was significantly more frequent in the placebo group compared with the ondansetron group (68% versus 39%) (P = 0.001). Time to pruritus was similar in both groups (placebo group, 55 +/- 32 min versus ondansetron group, 50 +/- 31 min). Duration of pruritus was also similar in both groups (placebo group, 98 +/- 60 min versus ondansetron group, 103 +/- 58 min). Ondansetron prophylaxis significantly reduced the incidence of intrathecal fentanyl-induced pruritus in patients undergoing surgery under bupivacaine spinal anesthesia. IMPLICATIONS: Pruritus is a commonly reported side effect after intrathecal fentanyl administration during spinal anesthesia. This study was performed in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled manner to investigate the efficacy of prophylactic IV ondansetron in the prevention of pruritus after intrathecal fentanyl administration during spinal anesthesia. The incidence of pruritus was significantly more frequent in the placebo group compared with the ondansetron group (68% versus 39%) (P = 0.001).     

Intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine 3 mg + fentanyl 10 microg for outpatient knee arthroscopy with tourniquet

BACKGROUND: Combination of local anesthetic and opioid enables the use of less spinal anesthetic and increases the success of anesthesia. Intrathecal opioid does not prolong motor recovery and thus should not delay discharge home. We hypothesized that 3 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine with 10 microg of fentanyl permits fast-tracking or shorter stay in post anesthesia care unit (PACU), and earlier discharge home, compared with 4 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine. METHODS: In this double-blind study, 100 outpatients undergoing knee arthroscopy received randomly either 4 mg of bupivacaine (B4) or 3 mg of bupivacaine + 10 microg fentanyl (B3F) intrathecally. The volume of 0.8 ml was injected at the L2/3 interspace over a 2-min period. A lateral decubitus position was maintained for 10 min. The sensory block was recorded by using thermal stimuli, and motor block was assessed according to a modified Bromage scale. Fast-tracking criteria were complete recovery of motor block, sensory block Th12 or lower and stable vital signs. RESULTS: One block (1%) failed. Motor recovery was faster in the B3F group: 60% of the patients recovered in 80 min or less compared with 28% in group B4 (P = 0.002). The PACU-time was shorter: 36 (10-103) vs. 55 (10-140) min, respectively (P = 0.005). Seventeen (B3F) vs. nine patients (B4) could bypass PACU (NS). Time to discharge home was similar in both groups. In the B3F group, 75% of the patients developed pruritus. CONCLUSION: Both solutions produced reliable spinal anesthesia for outpatient knee arthroscopy. The PACU-time was shorter in the bupivacaine-fentanyl group, but both groups reached home-readiness equally.     

Hyperbaric spinal ropivacaine for cesarean delivery: a comparison to hyperbaric bupivacaine.

We evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of spinal anesthesia with 0.5% hyperbaric ropivacaine compared with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine for elective cesarean delivery. Sixty healthy, full-term parturients were randomly assigned to receive either 12 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine or 18 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric ropivacaine intrathecally. There were no significant differences in demographic or surgical variables or neonatal outcomes between groups. Onset time of sensory block to T10 or to peak level was later in the Ropivacaine group (P < 0.05). The median (range) peak level of analgesia was T3 (T1-5) in the Bupivacaine group and T3 (T1-4) in the Ropivacaine group. Time for sensory block to recede to T10 did not differ between groups. Duration of sensory block was shorter in the Ropivacaine group (188.5 +/- 28.2 min vs 162.5 +/- 20.2 min; P < 0.05). Complete motor block of the lower extremities was obtained in all patients. Ropivacaine also produced a shorter duration of motor blockade than bupivacaine (113.7 +/- 18.6 min vs 158.7 +/- 31.2 min; P < 0.000). The intraoperative quality of anesthesia was excellent and similar in both groups. Side effects did not differ between groups. Eighteen milligrams of 0.5% hyperbaric ropivacaine provided effective spinal anesthesia with shorter duration of sensory and motor block, compared with 12 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine when administered for cesarean delivery Implications: Eighteen milligrams of 0.5% hyperbaric ropivacaine provided effective spinal anesthesia with shorter duration of sensory and motor block, compared with 12mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine when administered for cesarean delivery.     

A comparison of spinal, epidural, and general anesthesia for outpatient knee arthroscopy

We compared general, epidural, and spinal anesthesia for outpatient knee arthroscopy (excluding anterior cruciate ligament repairs). Forty-eight patients (ASA physical status I-III) were randomized to receive either propofol-nitrous oxide general anesthesia with a laryngeal mask airway with anesthetic depth titrated to a bispectral index level of 40-60, 15-20 mL of 3% 2-chloroprocaine epidural, or 75 mg of subarachnoid procaine with 20 microg fentanyl. All patients were premedicated with <0.035 mg/kg midazolam and <1 microg/kg fentanyl and received intraarticular bupivacaine and 15-30 mg of IV ketorolac during the procedure. Recovery times, operating room turnover times, and patient satisfaction were recorded by an observer using an objective scale for recovery assessment and a verbal rating scale for satisfaction. Statistical analysis was performed with analysis of variance and chi(2). Postanesthesia care unit discharge times for the general and epidural groups were similar (general = 104+/-31 min, epidural = 92+/-18 min), whereas the spinal group had a longer recovery time (146+/-52 min) (P = 0.0003). Patient satisfaction was equally good in all three groups (P = 0.34). Room turnover times did not differ among groups (P = 0.16). There were no anesthetic failures or serious adverse events in any group. Pruritus was more frequent in the spinal group (7 of 16 required treatment) than in the general or epidural groups (no pruritus) (P<0.001). We conclude that epidural anesthesia with 2-chloroprocaine provides comparable recovery and discharge times to general anesthesia provided with propofol and nitrous oxide. Spinal anesthesia with procaine and fentanyl is an effective alternative and is associated with a longer discharge time and increased side effects. Implications: For outpatient knee arthroscopy, anesthesia can be provided adequately with regional or general anesthesia. Epidural and general anesthesia provide equal recovery times and patient satisfaction, whereas spinal anesthesia may prolong recovery and have increased side effects. The choice of anesthesia may depend primarily on the patient's interest in being alert or asleep during the procedure.     

Combined low-dose spinal-epidural anesthesia versus single-shot spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery

Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia balancing low-dose intrathecal bupivacaine/fentanyl and low-dose epidural bupivacaine may be more useful than single-shot spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery in reducing incidences of adverse effects such as hypotension and nausea and in shortening motor recovery. Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (n=50) or spinal anesthesia (n=50) was randomly performed in 100 parturients. Intrathecal bupivacaine 6 mg added by fentanyl 20 mug followed after 5 min by 10 mL of 0.25% epidural bupivacaine were used for combined spinal-epidural and intrathecal bupivacaine 9 mg with fentanyl 20 mug for spinal anesthesia. The initial sensory block level was higher in the spinal group (P<0.001), although the maximum levels were the same (T3). Complete surgical anesthesia was achieved and no patient complained of intraoperative pain in either group. Patients in the spinal group had denser motor block in the extremities and a higher incidence of hypotension (P<0.05) and nausea and vomiting (P<0.05). Motor recovery was faster in the combined spinal-epidural group (P<0.001). We concluded that combined spinal-epidural anesthesia using low-dose local anesthetic-opioid spinal anesthesia and routine epidural supplementation before surgery had some potential advantages over single-shot spinal anesthesia in the lower incidences of adverse effects and quicker recovery.     

Low-dose bupivacaine plus fentanyl for spinal anesthesia during ambulatory inguinal herniorrhaphy: a comparison between 6 mg and 7. 5 mg of bupivacaine

BACKGROUND: Inguinal herniorrhaphy is commonly performed as an outpatient procedure. Spinal anesthesia offers some advantages over general anesthesia in this setting. METHODS: Forty patients were randomly divided into two groups according to a double-blind protocol: Group L had spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine 6.0 mg and Group H with bupivacaine 7.5 mg; in both groups, fentanyl 25 micro g was added to the spinal anesthetic. The sensory block was measured by 'pin-prick' and the motor block was evaluated by a modified Bromage scale. RESULTS: No differences were seen in the spread, duration and regression of sensory block between the groups on the operated side. A greater number of patients required analgesics during the operation in Group L (6) compared with Group H (1) (P<0.05). The return of the modified Bromage scale to grade 0 was earlier in Group L than in Group H (P<0.05) but the time to mobilization and discharge was similar. Seven patients (17%) needed to be catheterized and two had the catheter retained overnight. Times to home discharge (median) were 350 and 445 min, respectively, in Groups L and H. Postoperatively and during the first week, visual analog pain scores, analgesic requirements and side-effects were similar between the groups. In Group H, 95% of the patients and in Group L 85% would have the same anesthetic again if operated upon for a similar procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine 7.5 mg and fentanyl offers an alternative to general or local anesthesia for ambulatory inguinal herniorrhaphy. However, the long discharge times and risk for urinary retention restrict its routine use in all patients.     

The effect of epidural bupivacaine on induction and maintenance doses of propofol (evaluated by bispectral index) and maintenance doses of fentanyl and vecuronium

The growing interest in combining local and general anesthesia has led to studies investigating possible interactions between general anesthesia and local anesthetics administered via spinal, epidural, IV, or IM routes. However, no study has evaluated the effect of local anesthetics on all three components of balanced anesthesia, i.e., hypnosis, analgesia, and muscle relaxation. In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we investigated the effect of epidural bupivacaine on the dose requirement of propofol (as evaluated by using the bispectral index [BIS]), fentanyl, and vecuronium for general anesthesia. This study consisted of 30 adults, ASA physical status I and II, undergoing Whipple's pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary carcinoma lasting >4 h. An epidural catheter was placed between T9-10. Depending on the group allocation, 10 mL of the study drug was administered as a bolus followed by an infusion at 6 mL/h via the epidural catheter. Patients were divided into 2 groups of 15 each. Patients in the control group received epidural normal saline whereas those in the bupivacaine group received epidural bupivacaine 0.1%. Induction of anesthesia was performed with IV fentanyl 2 mug/kg and propofol titrated to achieve BIS between 40-50. Endotracheal intubation was facilitated by the IV administration of vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg and patient's lungs were ventilated with 66% nitrous oxide in oxygen. After intubation, infusion of propofol 1% was titrated to maintain BIS between 40-50. Inadequate analgesia was defined as an increase in systolic blood pressure and/or heart rate by >20% of baseline values in response to surgical stimulus and was treated with bolus fentanyl 0.5 mug/kg. Neuromuscular monitoring was used to assess the need for additional doses of vecuronium. Data were analyzed by using the Student's t-test and P 相似文献   

Clinical effects of intrathecally administered fentanyl in patients undergoing cesarean section.

The clinical effects of spinally (subarachnoid) administered, preservative-free fentanyl were assessed in 120 healthy women who underwent cesarean section with spinal anesthesia using 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Subjects were divided at random into four groups (n = 30) the first of which received 2 mL of saline containing no fentanyl (group 0); the second, 0.25 micrograms/kg (group 25); the third, 0.5 micrograms/kg (group 50); and the fourth, 0.75 micrograms/kg (group 75) of fentanyl in a blinded manner. Surgical anesthesia was excellent in 100% of treated patients and in 87% of group 0. Respiratory rate decreased significantly in groups 50 and 75 and was recorded as early as 4 min after the administration of the drug. Nevertheless, respiratory depression did not develop in any patient, and 40 min later all groups had a similar respiratory rate. Regression of anesthesia to the T-12 dermatome took a longer time as the dose of fentanyl increased, but all patients had recovered by 240 min after the injection. Effective postoperative analgesia lasted longer and significantly increased with the dose of fentanyl administered: group 0, 197 +/- 77 min; group 25, 305 +/- 89 min; group 50, 640 +/- 142 min; and group 75, 787 +/- 161 min (data expressed as mean +/- SD; P less than 0.001 between groups). Neonatal status was the same in all groups. Sedation and pruritus were the main side effects. The combination of bupivacaine and a low dose of fentanyl (0.25 micrograms/kg) provides excellent surgical anesthesia with short-lasting postoperative analgesia and very few negative side effects.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

A comparison of minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia and local anesthesia/propofol infusion for outpatient knee arthroscopy

Traditional methods of spinal anesthesia have proven problematic in the outpatient setting. Minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia (SAB(MLF)) may be the adaptation necessary to reestablish spinal anesthesia in this venue. One hundred patients scheduled for outpatient knee arthroscopy were randomized to receive either local anesthesia plus a titrated IV propofol infusion (LA/PI) or SAB(MLF) using 20 mg lidocaine 0.5% + 20 microg fentanyl. Patients received midazolam 0.02-0.03 mg/kg IV and fentanyl 0.75-1.0 microg/kg IV upon arrival in the operating room before lumbar puncture or propofol infusion. The propofol infusion was begun at 50-75 microg. kg(-)(1). min(-)(1) and titrated to maintain patient comfort. Boluses (200-400 microg/kg) were given as needed. Local anesthesia included 30 mL lidocaine 1% with epinephrine 1:200,000 intraarticularly plus 10 mL at the portal sites. Three patients (6%) in the LA/PI group versus none in the SAB(MLF) group required general anesthesia. Airway support was required in 54% of the LA/PI patients and in none of the SAB(MLF) patients. Total operating room time (43 vs 45 min), time to home readiness (43 vs 45 min), actual discharge times (73.5 min in both groups), and the incidence of discharge >90 min (22% vs 24%) were the same for both LA/PI and SAB(MLF) groups. LA/PI and SAB(MLF) groups differed in terms of postoperative pruritus (8% vs 68%), pain (44% vs 20%), nausea (8% vs 22%), and ability to void before discharge (56% vs 32%). One patient in each group had mild difficulty initiating voiding at home, but neither required medical attention. In both groups, 90% of patients were either "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their anesthetic. The two techniques provided comparable patient satisfaction and efficiencies both intraoperatively and in postoperative recovery and discharge. The efficiencies of these techniques were not dependent on special provisions of the physical plant or the practice model. IMPLICATIONS: Both local anesthesia supplemented by a titrated IV propofol infusion and minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia for outpatient knee arthroscopy provide high patient satisfaction with equally rapid recovery and discharge.     

Hypobaric bupivacaine spinal anesthesia for cystoscopic intervention: the impact of adding fentanyl

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Addition of fentanyl to hyperbaric bupivacaine spinal anesthesia prolonged the duration of sensory block. This study seeks to test the hypothesis that adding fentanyl to small dose hypobaric spinal anesthesia will improve intraoperative patients and surgeon satisfaction without delay in recovery. METHODS: Patients (n = 80) subjected to minor cystoscopic surgery were randomly assigned to have spinal anesthesia with either 5 mg bupivacaine 0.1% or 5 mg bupivacaine 0.1% mixed with 20 micrograms fentanyl. The main outcome measures included intraoperative patient and endoscopist satisfaction, sedative/analgesic supplementation, postoperative side effects and time to ambulation. RESULTS: Patients in the bupivacaine group needed more analgesic supplementation. Analgesia was more adequate in the bupivacaine-fentanyl group. Pruritus was the main side effect in the bupivacaine fentanyl group. Ambulation and discharge of patients were nearly the same in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal anesthesia with small dose (5 mg) hypobaric (0.1%) bupivacaine mixed with fentanyl (20 micrograms) produced adequate anesthesia for short cystoscopic procedures with minimal side effects and without delay in ambulation.     

Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia using epidural volume extension leads to faster motor recovery after elective cesarean delivery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study

Epidural volume extension (EVE) via a combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique is the enhancement of a small-dose intrathecal block by epidural saline boluses. In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we compared the EVE technique with single-shot spinal anesthesia with respect to its sensory and motor block profile and hemodynamic stability. Sixty-two parturients (n = 31 in each group) undergoing elective cesarean deliveries were administered either spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine 9 mg and fentanyl 10 microg or CSE comprising intrathecal hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine 5 mg with fentanyl 10 microg, followed by 0.9% saline 6.0 mL through the epidural catheter 5 min thereafter. In each group, the lowest systolic blood pressure (SBP), sensory block level to loss of pain from pinprick, and modified Bromage scores were recorded at 2.5-min intervals. The visual analog pain score (VAS), peak sensory block height, highest modified Bromage motor score, time for sensory regression to the tenth thoracic dermatome (T10), and motor block recovery were compared between groups. Both groups were comparable in demographic data, VAS scores, peak sensory block height, time for sensory regression to T10, and lowest SBP recorded. Patients in the EVE group demonstrated significantly faster motor recovery to modified Bromage 0 (73 +/- 33 min versus 136 +/- 32 min, P < 0.05). IMPLICATIONS: When compared with conventional, single-shot spinal anesthesia, epidural volume extension of a small-dose spinal block provides satisfactory anesthesia for cesarean delivery with only 55% of the bupivacaine dose required and is associated with faster motor recovery of the lower limbs.