Ropivacaine 0.2% and lidocaine 0.5% for intravenous regional anesthesia in outpatient surgery

BACKGROUND: A longer-acting local anesthetic agent, such as ropivacaine, may offer advantages over lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia. The objectives of this study were to evaluate whether the findings of volunteer investigations with intravenous regional anesthesia with ropivacaine (which have shown prolonged analgesia after release of the tourniquet) translates into improved pain control after surgery. METHODS: With Human Investigation Committee approval and a double-blind study design, 20 healthy patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II classification who were scheduled to undergo forearm and hand surgery were randomly assigned to administration of 40 ml of either 0.2% ropivacaine or 0.5% lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia. Evidence of central nervous system side effects, such as lightheadedness, tinnitus, and metallic taste, as well as cardiac arrhythmias, were evaluated and treated (if necessary) after local anesthetic administration, before and during surgery, and after release of the tourniquet until discharge from the postanesthesia care unit. Regression of sensory anesthesia in the nerve distributions of the forearm and hand was recorded. Verbal numerical pain scores were monitored and quantified until the patients were discharged to home from the postanesthesia care unit. Patient pain scores, side effect profiles, time to first oral intake, and total amount of oral analgesics were recorded 24 h postoperatively. RESULTS: Intravenous regional anesthesia with 0.2% ropivacaine and 0.5% lidocaine provided equivalent levels of surgical anesthesia. After release of the tourniquet, the first evidence for return of sensation in the distribution of the five peripheral nerves occurred later in the ropivacaine group (median, 20 min; range, 15-40 min) than in the lidocaine group (median, 1 min; range, 1-25 min). Verbal numerical pain scores were significantly lower at the time of admission, whereas during the remainder of the postanesthesia care unit stay and later at home, the difference in verbal numerical pain scores between the two groups was no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Ropivacaine 0.2% may be an alternative to 0.5% lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia in the outpatient surgical setting. Longer-lasting analgesia in the immediate postoperative period may be due to a more profound and prolonged tissue binding effect of ropivacaine.     

The analgesic effect of nitroglycerin added to lidocaine on intravenous regional anesthesia

We evaluated the analgesic effect of nitroglycerine (NTG) when added to lidocaine in IV regional anesthesia. Thirty patients undergoing hand surgery were randomly assigned to two groups. The control group (group C, n = 15) received a total dose of 40 mL with 3 mg/kg of lidocaine diluted with saline, and the NTG group (group NTG, n = 15) received an additional 200 mug NTG. Hemodynamic variables, tourniquet pain measured before and 1, 5, 10, 20, and 30 min after tourniquet inflation, and analgesic requirements were recorded during the operation. After the tourniquet deflation, at 1 and 30 min and 2 and 4 h, visual analog scale (VAS) score, time to first analgesic requirement, total analgesic consumption in the first 24 h after operation, and side effects were noted. Shortened sensory and motor block onset time (3.2 +/- 1.1 versus 4.5 +/- 1.2 min; P = 0.01 and 3.3 +/- 1.6 versus 5.2 +/- 1.8; P = 0.009 in group NTG and group C, respectively), prolonged sensory and motor block recovery times (6.8 +/- 1.6 versus 3.1 +/- 1.2 min P < 0.0001 and 7.3 +/- 1.3 versus 3.6 +/- 0.8 P < 0.0001 in group NTG and group C, respectively), shortened VAS scores of tourniquet pain (P = 0.023), and improved quality of anesthesia were found in group NTG (P < 0.05). VAS scores were lower in group NTG after tourniquet release and in the postoperative period (P = 0.001). First analgesic requirement time was longer in group NTG (225 +/- 74 min versus 39 +/- 33 min) than in group C (P < 0.0001). Postoperative analgesic requirements were significantly smaller in group NTG (P < 0.0001) but the side effects were similar in both groups. We conclude that the addition of NTG to lidocaine for IV regional anesthesia improves sensory and motor block, tourniquet pain, and postoperative analgesia without side effects.     

Tramadol added to lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia

Sixty volunteers, divided into four groups of 15 each, received IV regional anesthesia of the upper limb with 40 mL tramadol 0.25%, sodium chloride 0.9%, lidocaine 0.5%, or 100 mg tramadol-containing lidocaine 0.5%. By using a double-blinded method, we tested the onset and recovery of sensory block at six sites of the forearm and hand as well as onset of complete motor block. The symptoms after deflation of the tourniquet were recorded. The onset and recovery of sensory block and the onset of motor block were similar in the tramadol and saline groups. However, in the Tramadol-Lidocaine Group, the speed of onset of sensory block was faster than in the Lidocaine Group. In the Tramadol and the Tramadol-Lidocaine Groups, the incidence of skin rash and painful or burning sensation at the injection site was increased. We conclude that tramadol 0.25% does not have a local anesthetic effect when used as a sole drug for IV regional anesthesia, but might modify the action of local anesthetic, providing a shorter onset time of sensory block. Implications: Tramadol, a centrally acting analgesic, might have local anesthetic properties, as do some opioid drugs. We demonstrated that 0.25% tramadol solution containing 100 mg tramadol is not effective as a sole drug, but may improve the action of 0.5% lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia. The increased incidence of side effects may limit the clinical use of tramadol.     

Comparison of anesthetic effect between 0.375% ropivacaine versus 0.5% lidocaine in forearm intravenous regional anesthesia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ropivacaine was shown to provide superior postblock analgesia to lidocaine in intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) in voluntary studies. The objective of this study was to compare the anesthesia efficacy, postblock analgesia, and local anesthetic-related side effects between ropivacaine and lidocaine when forearm IVRA was used. METHODS: Fifty-one patients undergoing outpatient hand surgery were randomized to receive forearm IVRA with either ropivacaine 0.375% or lidocaine 0.5%. The volume was 0.4 mL/kg up to 25 mL. Sensation to pinching by forceps and motor function was assessed at 5-minute intervals up to 15 minutes. After tourniquet deflation, verbal pain rating score (VRPS) at 15-minute intervals for the first 2 hours and time for first analgesic in the first 24 hours were evaluated. RESULTS: Eleven patients were excluded from the study with 20 patients remaining in each group. Onset time of anesthesia (6.5 +/- 2.9 minutes v 8.0 +/- 4.1 minutes for lidocaine and ropivacaine groups, respectively) and motor block were similar. In the postoperative period, VPRS was significantly lower in the ropivacaine group in the first 60 minutes (median, 0; P <.05) with significantly more patients in the ropivacaine group pain free (VPRS, 0) up to the first 90 minutes (P >.05). More patients in lidocaine group requested analgesic in the first 2 hours postblock, and only patients in the lidocaine group required supplemental IV morphine in the recovery room. Twenty-four hour analgesic consumption was the same. No local anesthetic-related side effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that 0.375% ropivacaine provides effective anesthesia and superior postoperative analgesia compared with 0.5% lidocaine when forearm IVRA is used.     

Levobupivacaine 0.125% and lidocaine 0.5% for intravenous regional anesthesia in volunteers

BACKGROUND: Levobupivacaine, a long acting, amino-amide, local anesthetic, may offer advantages over lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA). The objective of this investigation was to compare levobupivacaine to lidocaine for IVRA. METHODS: After institutional review board approval and informed consent, eight unpremedicated male American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II volunteers received 40 ml of levobupivacaine 0.125% or lidocaine 0.5% for IVRA on separate days. Onset and regression of sensory anesthesia by pinprick, transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES), and of motor function were tested before, during, and after release of the tourniquet. Central nervous system and cardiac side effects were evaluated after local anesthetic administration and tourniquet release. The tourniquet remained inflated for 30-45 min. RESULTS: Intravenous regional anesthesia with either agent provided surgical anesthesia. Sensory anesthesia to pinprick (lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve) was faster with lidocaine at median 1.5 min. versus 12.5 min with levobupivacaine. Loss of sensation to TES occurred at median 22.5 and 27.5 min for lidocaine and levobupivacaine, respectively. Loss of motor function occurred earlier after lidocaine administration. After release of the tourniquet, return of sensation to TES, pinprick (ulnar nerve), and return of motor function occurred later with levobupivacaine at median 25, 15, and 21.25 versus 10, 4.5, and 10 min with lidocaine. Central nervous system side effects were absent in volunteers given levobupivacaine, but five of eight volunteers given lidocaine experienced mild side effects. No cardiac events were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Levobupivacaine 0.125% may be an alternative to lidocaine 0.5% for IVRA. Longer lasting analgesia after release of the tourniquet may be caused by a more profound and prolonged tissue binding effect of levobupivacaine.     

Comparison of ropivacaine 0.2% and 0.25% with lidocaine 0.5% for intravenous regional anesthesia

Study ObjectiveTo compare the anesthetic effects of two different concentrations and doses of ropivacaine (0.2% and 0.25%) with those of a conventional dose of lidocaine 0.5%.DesignProspective, randomized, double-blinded, clinical investigation.SettingLarge metropolitan university hospital.Patients66 adult ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing forearm and hand surgery.InterventionsPatients were randomly allocated to three groups to receive intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA). Study groups were: ropivacaine 0.2% (Group I, n = 22), ropivacaine 0.25% (Group II, n = 22), and lidocaine 0.5% (Group III, n = 22).MeasurementsTourniquet tolerance times and regression of sensory analgesia were noted. Verbal numerical pain scores (VNS), cumulative analgesic consumption, and side effects were recorded during surgery and postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Time to first pain medication intake and number of patients receiving analgesics in the PACU were recorded.Main ResultsAdditional tolerance times for the distal tourniquet were significantly higher in the ropivacaine 0.25% group than the other two groups. Regression of sensory anesthesia was fastest in the lidocaine group. During the PACU stay, VNSs were significantly lower in the first 20 minutes in the ropivacaine groups than the lidocaine group. Time to first intake of pain medication in the PACU was soonest in the lidocaine group. The number of patients given analgesics in the PACU was highest in the lidocaine group. The number of patients taking > two tablets of tramadol was significantly lowest in the ropivacaine 0.25% group. No serious side effects were observed in any study group.ConclusionLonger tolerance times for the distal tourniquet, prolonged analgesia after tourniquet release, and lower analgesic requirements postoperatively make ropivacaine 0.2% and 0.25% an alternative to lidocaine for IVRA.     

Addition of clonidine to 0.5% lidocaine for intravenous locoregional anesthesia

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effect of the addition of clonidine to lidocaine on postoperative pain after intravenous regional anaesthesia. STUDY DESIGN: Double blind prospective study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients were randomly allocated to two groups: group 1 (n = 25) receiving 3 mg.kg-1 of lidocaine 0.5% added to saline and group 2 (n = 20) receiving 3 mg.kg-1 of lidocaine 0.5% added to clonidine (150 micrograms). Postoperative analgesia was assessed using a visual analogue pain score (VAPS) and the time to first analgesic request. The incidence of side effects after tourniquet release was noted. Analysis of variance, Kruskall Wallis and chi 2 tests were used for statistical analysis. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Age, ASA class, duration and type of surgery, tourniquet time and sensory block duration were comparable for the two groups. The time to first antalgic request after deflation of tourniquet was similar in the two groups (38 +/- 15 min versus 44 +/- 19 min), while VAPS score was lower (p < 0.05) in the clonidine group (5.2 versus 6.8). The incidence of side effects was comparable in the two groups. CONCLUSION: The addition of clonidine (150 micrograms) to lidocaine for intravenous regional anaesthesia improved postoperative analgesia but in a limited and short-lasting manner.     

Comparison of ropivacaine 0.2% and lidocaine 0.5% for intravenous regional anesthesia in volunteers.

A longer acting local anesthetic such as ropivacaine may offer advantages over lidocaine for IV regional anesthesia (IVRA). The objective of this investigation was to determine whether the use of ropivacaine improves the quality and duration of IVRA. In a randomized, double cross-over design, 10 volunteers received lidocaine 0.5% or ropivacaine 0.2% for IVRA of the upper extremity on two separate days with a standard double-cuff technique. Sensation to pinprick, response to tetanic stimuli, and tourniquet pain were assessed on a 0-10 verbal numeric score scale at 5-min intervals throughout the period of tourniquet inflation. Motor function was evaluated by grip strength. After release of the second (distal) cuff, pinprick sensation, motor strength, and systemic side effects were evaluated at 3, 10, and 30 min. No significant differences were observed for onset times of anesthesia and times to proximal (38 +/- 3 and 36 +/- 3 min) or distal (34 +/- 13 and 36 +/- 13 min) tourniquet release after the administration of ropivacaine and lidocaine, respectively. However, postdeflation hypoalgesia and motor blockade were prolonged with ropivacaine, and postdeflation light-headedness, tinnitus, and drowsiness were more prominent with lidocaine. We conclude that ropivacaine may be an alternative to lidocaine for IVRA. It may result in prolonged analgesia and fewer side effects after tourniquet release. IMPLICATIONS: In this study, volunteers received lidocaine 0.5% or ropivacaine 0.2% for IV regional anesthesia on two study days. Ropivacaine and lidocaine provided similar surgical conditions. However, after release of the distal tourniquet, prolonged sensory blockade and fewer central nervous system side effects were observed with ropivacaine.     

The analgesic effect of lornoxicam when added to lidocaine for intravenous regional anaesthesia

Background. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectof lornoxicam (L) on sensory and motor block onset time, tourniquetpain, and postoperative analgesia, when added to lidocaine inintravenous regional anaesthesia (IVRA). Methods. Forty-five patients undergoing hand surgery were randomlyand blindly divided into three groups as to receive either i.v.saline and IVRA with lidocaine 0.5% (Control group, n=15), i.v.saline and IVRA lidocaine 0.5% with lornoxicam (L-IVRA group,n=15), or intravenous lornoxicam and IVRA lidocaine 0.5% (L-IVgroup, n=15). Sensory and motor blocks onset time, and tourniquetpain was measured after tourniquet application at 5, 10, 20,and 30 min, and analgesic use were recorded during operation.After the tourniquet deflation, at 1, 30 min, and 2, 4 h, visualanalogue scales score, the time to first analgesic requirement,total analgesic consumption in first 24 h, and side effectswere noted. Results. Sensory and motor block onset times were shorter andthe recovery time prolonged in the Group L-IVRA compared withthe other group (P=0.001). A decreased tourniquet pain, a prolongedtime first analgesic requirement [229 (85) min vs 28 (20) and95 (24) min, P=0.0038) and less postoperative analgesic requirementsduring 24 h were found in Group L-IVRA compared with the othergroups (P<0.05). Conclusions. The addition of lornoxicam to lidocaine for intravenousregional anaesthesia shortens the onset of sensory and motorblock, decreases tourniquet pain and improves postoperativeanalgesia without causing any side effect.     

Intravenous regional anesthesia using lidocaine and neostigmine for upper limb surgery

Study ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of adding neostigmine to lidocaine in intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA).DesignRandomized, double-blinded study.SettingTertiary-care academic medical institution.Patients40 ASA physical status I and II patients scheduled for elective or emergency forearm and hand surgery.InterventionPatients were randomized to two groups of 20 patients each. In the control group, IVRA was established using 40 mL of 0.5% lidocaine with one mL of isotonic saline, while neostigmine group patients received 40 mL of 0.5% lidocaine with 0.5 mg neostigmine.MeasurementsHemodynamic parameters, onset and recovery times of sensory and motor blocks, and quality of anesthesia achieved with IVRA were recorded. After tourniquet deflation, visual analog pain scores (VAS) were noted every 30 minutes in the first two hours, as were the time to first analgesic request and total analgesic requirement in the 24-hour postoperative period.Main ResultsIn the first 24 hours after surgery, the neostigmine group had significantly lower VAS scores, longer time to first analgesic request, and reduced total analgesic requirement. Intraoperatively, the neostigmine group had significantly shorter sensory and motor block onset times and longer recovery times than the control group. No significant frequency of adverse effects was seen in either group. The quality of intraoperative anesthesia and frequency of tourniquet pain were similar in both groups.ConclusionsThe addition of neostigmine to lidocaine shortens onset time and improves postoperative analgesia in IVRA for upper limb surgery.     

Non-alkalinized and alkalinized 2-chloroprocainevs lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia during outpatient hand surgery

PURPOSE: Chloroprocaine should be an ideal agent for intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) because of its rapid onset and ester hydrolysis. Raising the pH of local anesthetics may increase the speed of onset and the intensity of nerve blocks. We compared plain and alkalinized 2-chloroprocaine 0.5% with lidocaine for IVRA. METHODS: In two separate double-blind studies, 78 patients scheduled for daycare hand surgery were randomized to receive 40 mL plain 2-chloroprocaine 0.5%, alkalinized 2-chloroprocaine 0.5% or lidocaine 0.5% for IVRA. Time to sensory and motor block, need for supplemental analgesia, and side effects were compared. RESULTS: There was no difference in time to sensory or motor block in either group. Patients who received plain chloroprocaine required more supplemental opioid and had a higher incidence of metallic taste and of hives than patients who received lidocaine (P < 0.05). Comparing alkalinized chloroprocaine with lidocaine, there was no difference found with respect to opioid supplementation, CNS side effects, or incidence of hives. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, alkalinized chloroprocaine was found to be an effective agent for IVRA but no benefit over lidocaine was detected. Plain chloroprocaine for IVRA produced more minor side effects than lidocaine.     

Intra-arterial regional anaesthesia for hand surgery with alkalinized 0.5% lignocaine

Intra-arterial regional anaesthesia (IARA) for hand surgery is an old, forgotten technique. One of the causes of low popularity may be a scalding sensation in the hand during intra-arterial injection of lignocaine, which may be caused by low pH of lignocaine's solution.
In this randomized, double-blind study, normal (pH 5.2-5.3) or alkalinized (pH 7.2-7.3) preservative-free 0.5% lignocaine 1.5 mg kg^-1 was injected into the radial arteries of forty adult patients to produce anaesthesia for ambulatory hand surgery.
Scalding sensation in the hand during intra-arterial injection (VAS) was less pronounced with alkalinized lignocaine ( P =0.04). The time of onset and regression of analgesia was similar in both groups. Four patients in group 1 (normal lignocaine) and six patients in group 2 (alkalinized lignocaine) needed supplemental analgesia at the start of surgery (NS). Cannulation time, operating conditions, motor blockade, surgical-, and tourniquet pain scores (VAS) and patient's acceptance were similar. Three patients (two in group 1 and one in group 2) had minor systemic adverse effects after tourniquet release (NS). Nine patients in group 1 and seven in group 2 developed minor bruises after cannulation (NS). No other sequelae of intra-arterial injections were observed.
We conclude that alkalinized 0.5% lignocaine was less painful on injection than normal lignocaine and should be preferred for intra-arterial regional anaesthesia for hand surgery.     

Adding dexmedetomidine to lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia

Dexmedetomidine is approximately 8 times more selective toward the alpha-2-adrenoceptors than clonidine. It decreases anesthetic requirements by up to 90% and induces analgesia in patients. We designed this study to evaluate the effect of dexmedetomidine when added to lidocaine in IV regional anesthesia (IVRA). We investigated onset and duration of sensory and motor blocks, the quality of the anesthesia, intraoperative-postoperative hemodynamic variables, and intraoperative-postoperative pain and sedation. Thirty patients undergoing hand surgery were randomly assigned to 2 groups to receive IVRA. They received 40 mL of 0.5% lidocaine and either 1 mL of isotonic saline (group L, n = 15) or 0.5 microg/kg dexmedetomidine (group LD, n = 15). Sensory and motor block onset and recovery times and anesthesia quality were noted. Before and after the tourniquet application at 5, 10, 15, 20, and 40 min, hemodynamic variables, tourniquet pain and sedation, and analgesic use were recorded. After the tourniquet deflation, at 30 min, and 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h, hemodynamic variables, pain and sedation values, time to first analgesic requirement, analgesic use, and side effects were noted. Shortened sensory and motor block onset times, prolonged sensory and motor block recovery times, prolonged tolerance for the tourniquet, and improved quality of anesthesia were found in group LD. Visual analog scale scores were significantly less in group LD in the intraoperative period and 30 min, and 2, 4, and 6 h after tourniquet release. Intra-postoperative analgesic requirements were significantly less in group LD. Time to first analgesic requirements was significantly longer in group LD in the postoperative period. We conclude that the addition of 0.5 microg/kg dexmedetomidine to lidocaine for IVRA improves quality of anesthesia and perioperative analgesia without causing side effects. IMPLICATIONS: This study was designed to evaluate the effect of dexmedetomidine when added to lidocaine for IV regional anesthesia. This is the first clinical study demonstrating that the addition of 0.5 microg/kg dexmedetomidine to lidocaine for IV regional anesthesia improves quality of anesthesia and intraoperative-postoperative analgesia without causing side effects.     

Addition of cisatracurium to lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the onset and regression time of motor and sensory block, and the quality of anesthesia and postoperative analgesia by the addition of cisatracurium to local anesthetic solution in small doses in intravenous regional anesthesia. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind study. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: 40 ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing elective hand surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Intravenous regional anesthesia was achieved using 3 mg/kg lidocaine diluted with saline to a total volume of 40 mL in the control group or 0.01 mg/kg of cisatracurium plus 3 mg/kg lidocaine diluted with saline to a total volume of 40 mL in the cisatracurium group. MEASUREMENTS: The onset and the regression time for sensory and motor block were recorded. Quality of anesthesia, intraoperative, and postoperative analgesic requirements were noted. Mean arterial pressure and heart rate were recorded every 5 minutes. MAIN RESULTS: The onset time of sensory and motor block in the cisatracurium group was shorter than in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant. The quality of anesthesia was better in the cisatracurium group than in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant. There was no difference between the two groups with respect to sensory block regression time. Motor block regression time was statistically longer in the cisatracurium group than in the control group. Analgesic requirement was greater in the control group than in the cisatracurium group. CONCLUSION: The addition of cisatracurium to lidocaine in intravenous regional anesthesia shortened the sensory and motor block onset times, improved the quality of anesthesia, and decreased analgesic requirements without causing clinical side effects.     

A double-blind randomised comparison of ropivacaine 0.5%, bupivacaine 0.375% - lidocaine 1% and ropivacaine 0.5% - lidocaine 1% mixtures for cataract surgery

This study evaluated the efficacy and side-effects of plain ropivacaine compared with ropivacaine-lidocaine and bupivacaine-lidocaine mixtures for peribulbar blocks in cataract surgery. Ninety patients were randomly allocated to three groups and received peribulbar blockade using one of the three solutions. Speed of onset and quality of blockade were assessed using akinesia, surgical satisfaction and patient satisfaction. Complications and cardiovascular side-effects were noted. There was a slower onset of akinesia using ropivacaine alone, although at 10 min after injection all groups were equal in this respect. There was no difference in surgical or patient satisfaction between the groups. There were no differences in pain on injection, preblock and postblock blood pressure, heart rate or oxygen saturation. The optimal time to surgical incision after peribulbar blockade is not less than 15 min and plain ropivacaine fulfils this criterion.     

Peribulbar anesthesia with either 0.75% ropivacaine or a 2% lidocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine mixture for vitreoretinal surgery: a double-blinded study.

No study has evaluated the efficacy of ropivacaine in peribulbar block for ophthalmic surgery. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study was to compare ropivacaine and a lidocaine-bupivacaine mixture in peribulbar anesthesia. Sixty ASA physical status I or II patients scheduled for elective vitreoretinal surgery were randomized to receive a peribulbar block with 8 mL of either 0.75% ropivacaine (ropivacaine group, n = 30) or a 1:1 mixture of 2% plain lidocaine and 0.5% plain bupivacaine (lido-bupivacaine group, n = 30). Time required for onset of surgical anesthesia, quality of postoperative analgesia, incidence of side effects, and analgesic consumption were recorded. Surgical block was achieved after 8 +/- 5 min in the lido-bupivacaine group and after 10 +/- 5 min in the ropivacaine group (P = 0.23). A 3-mL supplemental injection 15 min after block placement was required in 6 patients in the lido-bupivacaine group (20%) and in 10 patients in the ropivacaine group (33%) due to inadequate motor block (P = 0.38). On Postoperative Day 1, 26 patients in the ropivacaine group (87%) reported no pain at the verbal rating score, compared with 18 patients in the lido-bupivacaine group (60%) (P = 0.005). We conclude that 0.75% ropivacaine may be a suitable choice when performing peribulbar anesthesia for vitreoretinal surgery. IMPLICATIONS: Quick onset of block with prolonged postoperative analgesia is an important goal in regional anesthesia for ophthalmic surgery. Evaluating clinical properties of 0.75% ropivacaine and a 1:1 mixture of 2% lidocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine for peribulbar anesthesia, we demonstrated that ropivacaine has an onset similar to that of the lidocaine-bupivacaine mixture and provides a better quality of postoperative analgesia.     

Early but no long-term benefit of regional compared with general anesthesia for ambulatory hand surgery

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether either regional anesthesia (RA) or general anesthesia (GA) provided the best analgesia with the fewest adverse effects up to 2 weeks after ambulatory hand surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing ambulatory hand surgery were randomly assigned to RA (axillary brachial plexus block; n = 50) or GA (n = 50). Before surgery, all patients rated their hand pain (visual analog scale) and pain-related disability (Pain-Disability Index). After surgery, eligibility for bypassing the postanesthesia care unit ("fast track") was determined, and pain, adverse effects, and home-readiness scores were measured. On postoperative days 1, 7, and 14, patients documented their pain, opioid consumption, adverse effects, Pain-Disability Index, and satisfaction. RESULTS: More RA patients were fast-track eligible (P < 0.001), whereas duration of stay in the postanesthesia care unit was shorter in the RA group (P < 0.001). Time to first analgesic request was longer in the RA group (P < 0.001), and opioid consumption was reduced before discharge (P < 0.001). In the RA group, the pain ratings measured at 30, 60, 90, and 120 min after surgery were lower (P < 0.001), and patients spent less time in the hospital after surgery (P < 0.001). More GA patients experienced nausea/vomiting during recovery in the hospital (P < 0.05). However, on postoperative days 1, 7, and 14, there were no differences in pain, opioid consumption, adverse effects, Pain-Disability Index, or satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant reduction in pain before discharge from the hospital after ambulatory hand surgery, single-shot axillary brachial plexus block does not reduce pain at home on postoperative day 1 or up to 14 days after surgery when compared with GA. However, RA does provide other significant early benefits, including reduction in nausea and faster discharge from the hospital.     

Sevoflurane requirements to suppress responses to transcutaneous electrical stimulation during epidural anesthesia with 0.5% and 1% lidocaine

We sought to determine general anesthetic requirements to suppress skin vasomotor reflex (SVmR) and pupillary dilation (PD) in response to transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) during combined epidural-general anesthesia. Thirty-five patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery were randomly divided into 2 groups to epidurally receive 0.5% (Group 1) or 1% lidocaine (Group 2) with sevoflurane anesthesia. A bolus injection of either lidocaine was followed by the infusion of the same solution, and the central dermatomal level of loss of cold sensation (C) was determined. After the induction of general anesthesia with 5% sevoflurane and 67% nitrous oxide, nitrous oxide was discontinued, and sevoflurane concentration was decreased. TES was given at both site C and site three dermatomal segments (U) cephalad to C to determine the end-tidal sevoflurane concentration required to suppress SVmR and PD. End-tidal sevoflurane concentration that suppressed both responses was larger in Group 1 than in Group 2 at both sites and was larger at site U than at site C in both groups. We conclude that sevoflurane requirements to suppress SVmR and PD in response to TES during combined epidural-general anesthesia are different depending on the concentration of lidocaine and the site where surgical stimulation is applied. IMPLICATIONS: We evaluated sevoflurane requirements to suppress skin vasomotor reflex and pupillary dilation in response to a transcutaneous electrical stimulation at the surgical site during combined epidural-general anesthesia. Our results indicate that when epidural anesthesia is combined, general anesthetic requirements decrease depending on the lidocaine concentration for epidural anesthesia and the site where surgical stimulation is applied.