腰-硬联合麻醉在剖宫产手术中的临床观察

目的 探讨硬膜外麻醉(EA)和腰-硬联合麻醉(CSEA)用于剖宫产手术的临床效果.方法 选择无麻醉禁忌证的行剖宫产手术的产妇120例,随机分为EA组和CSEA组,比较2组术中低血压的发生率.注射局麻药开始到胎儿娩出的时间(I-D).腹肌松驰优等率以及新生儿出生后1 min、5 min的Apgar评分的差异.结果 CSE...     

右美托咪定不同时机给药对腰-硬联合麻醉后剖宫产产妇寒战反应的影响

目的比较右美托咪定不同时机给药对腰-硬联合麻醉后剖宫产产妇寒战反应的影响。方法腰-硬联合麻醉下行剖宫产产妇120例,随机分为三组,每组40例。A组与B组分别在麻醉开始前15min、胎儿娩出即刻静脉泵注右美托咪定0.4μg/kg(15 min);C组为对照组,静脉泵注等容量生理盐水。记录产妇寒战发生时间及等级,产妇Ramsay镇静程度评分以及恶心、呕吐、牵拉反应等不良反应发生情况。结果至术毕30 min,A组发现寒战2例(5.0%)、牵拉反应2例(5.0%),B组发现寒战8例(20.0%)、牵拉反应3例(7.5%),C组发现寒战19例(47.5%)、牵拉反应10例(25.0%)。与C组比较,A、B两组产妇寒战发生率明显降低,寒战程度明显减轻(P0.05),牵拉反应明显减少(P0.05)。与B组比较,A组产妇寒战发生率更低(P0.05),寒战程度也更低(P0.05);牵拉反应发生率差异无统计学意义。结论腰-硬联合麻醉前给予右美托咪定预防剖宫产产妇寒战的效果优于胎儿娩出后给药。     

剖宫产术硬膜外麻醉和腰硬联合麻醉的临床对比研究

目的:探讨硬膜外麻醉(CEA)和腰硬联合麻醉(CSEA)用于剖宫产手术的临床效果,旨在选择一种最为理想的麻醉方法.方法:随机选择无麻醉禁忌证的剖宫产手术病人200例,随机平分为CEA组和CSEA组.术中监测BP、HR、SpO2、ECG和手术牵拉反应,比较麻醉显效时间、阻滞效果、血压变化、不良反应、同时观察新生儿评分.结果:两组新生儿Imin、5min的Apgar评分均＞8分,无明显差异(P＞0.05);两组麻醉起效时间差异有显著性,阻滞效果Ⅱ组明显优于Ⅰ组(P＜0.05),两组麻醉平面上界差异无显著性;CSEA组低血压的发生率为25％高于CEA组13.3％(P＜0.05).结论:腰硬联合麻醉用于剖宫产手术麻醉效果确切,起效快,肌肉松驰好,对新生儿无影响.腰硬联合麻醉更能满足手术的各方面求,是剖宫产手术理想的麻醉方法.     

小剂量盐酸罗哌卡因腰-硬联合麻醉对剖宫产产妇血流动力学及麻醉质量的影响

目的探讨小剂量盐酸罗哌卡因腰-硬联合麻醉对剖宫产产妇血流动力学及麻醉质量的影响。方法选择2015-04—2016-08间于西平县人民医院进行剖宫产的98例产妇,随机分为2组,各49例。对照组给予大剂量(1.5 m L)盐酸罗哌卡因,观察组给予小剂量(1 m L)盐酸罗哌卡因联合10μg芬太尼。对2组产妇的麻醉效果、不良反应率及麻醉后、胎儿娩出后、手术结束后产妇的血流动力学指标进行比较。结果 2组产妇的麻醉效果差异无统计学意义(P0.05);麻醉后15 min和手术结束后,2组产妇的血流动力学比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。胎儿娩出后观察组产妇血流动力学指标均优于对照组,不良反应率显著低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论小剂量盐酸罗哌卡因腰-硬联合麻醉用于剖宫产产妇,术后血流动力学更加稳定,且不良反应发生率低。     

静脉预注甲氧明对剖宫产腰-硬联合麻醉低血压的防治效果

目的探讨静脉预注和补救性静脉注射甲氧明对择期剖宫产腰-硬联合麻醉后低血压防治作用的临床疗效和安全性。方法 100例足月单胎妊娠拟行剖宫产产妇随机均分为:甲氧明静脉预注组(Ⅰ组),腰-硬联合麻醉,在腰麻药注入后,即刻静脉预注甲氧明2mg,如上述处理后仍出现低血压,再静注甲氧明1～2mg;无甲氧明预注组(Ⅱ组),剖宫产腰-硬联合麻醉标准治疗基础上,在腰麻药注入后,即刻不给予甲氧明及其它升压药物预注,患者麻醉后出现血压下降(下降>20%或SBP<90mmHg)静脉注射甲氧明2mg,如上述处理后仍出现低血压,再静注甲氧明1～2mg。记录腰麻前(T0),腰麻后5min(T1),10min(T2),15min(T3)和手术结束(T4)时HR,BP,以及两组新生儿脐动脉血气分析和1minApgar评分。记录两组低血压发生率,患者恶心呕吐等不良反应发生情况。结果 T1～T3时Ⅰ组SBP、DBP明显高于Ⅱ组(P<0.05),T0、T4时两组SBP、DBP和HR差异无统计学意义。术中Ⅰ组低血压及恶心呕吐等不良反应发生率明显低于Ⅱ组(P<0.05);两组新生儿1minApgar评分及新生儿脐动脉血气分析差异均无统计学意义。结论静脉预注甲氧明能有效降低剖宫产腰麻后低血压发生率,相对于补救性静脉注射甲氧明,其升高血压的效果更明显、稳定;两种方式防治产妇低血压对胎儿都比较安全。     

连续无创血压监测系统在产科麻醉的应用

目的探讨连续无创血压监测系统(CNAP)CNAP~(TM)monitor 500比较传统的无创袖带血压(NIBP)监测系统应用于腰硬联合麻醉后剖宫产监测低血压发生的时效性。方法选择85例产妇在腰硬联合麻醉下行剖宫产术。总共有1040对产妇的收缩压和舒张压被监测,间隔周期为3 min,观察时间为麻醉前到胎儿娩出后,并记录新生儿的脐静脉血气分析和Apgar评分。结果相比NIBP,每一周期CNAP能监测的最低收缩压平均值(103±20.6 mmHg)明显低于(P0.05)NIBP的平均值(116±17.9 mmHg)和最高的CNAP收缩压平均值(120±19.6 mmHg)。低血压定义为收缩压低于90 mmHg,CNAP监测组低血压的发生率70.58%,而NIBP监测组低血压的发生率为35.29%。当CNAP监测的低血压(收缩压为90 mmHg)时,未发现胎儿酸中毒(脐静脉血p H值7.25)。结论 CNAP能够比NIBP监测出更多的低血压事件,而且动脉血压明显低于NIBP监测系统。从胎儿利益的角度出发,CNAP的监测比NIBP更适于需要腰硬联合的产科手术。     

腰-硬联合麻醉对剖宫产妊娠高血压母婴的影响

目的探讨腰-硬联合麻醉对剖宫产妊娠高血压母婴的影响。方法回顾性分析2014年11月至2017年11月在本院行剖宫产的700例妊娠高血压产妇的临床资料,按术中所用麻醉方案不同分成EA组和CSEA组,EA组行连续硬膜外麻醉,CSEA组行腰-硬联合麻醉。对比两组的麻醉效果、血流动力学指标及母婴。结果 CSEA组的麻醉优良率显著高于EA组(P0.05)。胎儿娩出时,CSEA组的心率显著低于EA组(P0.05);麻醉5分钟,CSEA组的收缩压和舒张压均显著高于EA组(P0.05);CSEA组围手术期的心率、收缩压、舒张压较EA组平稳,而两组4个时间点的心输出量比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。CSEA组新生儿娩出后1分钟的Apgar评分显著高于EA组,胎儿窘迫发生率明显低于EA组(P0.05)。结论腰硬联合麻醉对妊娠期高血压疾病剖宫产妇麻醉效果优于单独硬膜外麻醉,能维持产妇血流动力学稳定,对胎儿呼吸抑制作用小,是较为理想的剖宫产麻醉方案。     

腰硬联合麻醉与单纯硬膜外麻醉在剖宫产中应用效果的比较

目的 对比单纯硬膜外麻醉与腰硬联合麻醉在剖宫产手术中的麻醉效果,以及对产妇和胎儿的影响。方法 随机选择本院采用单纯硬膜外麻醉和腰硬联合麻醉行剖宫产手术的产妇67例,分为硬膜外麻醉组(EA组)31例和腰硬联合麻醉组(CSEA组)36例。对比两组的麻醉效果及相关麻醉指标,产妇入室时(T0)、手术开始时(T1)、胎儿剖出时(T2)、手术结束时(T3)的心率(HR)、平均动脉压(MAP)及脑电双频谱指数(BIS),以及新生儿娩出后1、5分钟的Apgar评分。结果 CSEA组的麻醉优良率为100%,明显高于EA组(P<0.05);CSEA组的麻醉起效时间、麻醉至手术开始时间及麻醉平面达T6时间明显短于EA组(P<0.05),痛觉恢复时间明显长于EA组(P<0.05);两组产妇入室时、手术开始时、胎儿剖出时及手术结束时的HR、MAP及BIS值及两组新生儿娩出后1分钟、5分钟的Apgar评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 腰硬联合麻醉用于剖宫产的麻醉效果优于单纯硬膜外麻醉,且能维持产妇生命体征平稳,对胎儿呼吸无抑制作用,是较为理想的剖宫产麻醉方式。     

喉罩与腰-硬联合麻醉在侧卧位下肢手术的应用

目的 观察喉罩插管全身麻醉和腰-硬联合麻醉在侧卧位下肢手术的应用.方法 60例患者均分为两组:喉罩组(A组)采用喉罩插管全身麻醉,腰-硬联合麻醉组(B组)采用腰-硬联合麻醉.A组患者在摆好侧卧位后行喉罩插管,全程自主呼吸;B组患者行腰-硬联合麻醉,平卧位待麻醉平面出现后再摆侧卧位,全程自主呼吸.观察两组患者麻醉开始至手术开始时间,一次性操作成功率、术中低血压、术中不适发生率、麻醉相关并发症发生率及苏醒时间.结果 A组麻醉开始至手术开始时间明显短于B组(P＜0.05),术中低血压及不适发生率、一次性操作成功率低于B组(P＜0.05).结论 喉罩插管全身麻醉方便、有效,在侧卧位下肢手术中,是值得推荐的全麻方式.     

不同麻醉方式在妊娠高血压疾病剖宫产术中的应用比较

目的:比较单纯硬膜外麻醉、腰麻-硬膜外联合麻醉、静脉麻醉在妊娠高血压疾病剖宫产中的实施效果,探讨适合的麻醉方法.方法:回顾性分析2006年1月-2010年10月420例我院妊娠高血压疾病剖宫产的产妇的临床资料.结果:420例剖宫产的产妇中采用单纯硬膜外麻醉60例,腰麻-硬膜外联合麻醉340例,静脉麻醉20例;3组患者均顺利完成手术.单纯硬膜外麻醉在起效慢、麻醉效果不满意;腰麻-硬膜外联合麻醉组低血压发生率较高;静脉麻醉组新生儿Apgar评分与其它两组相比偏低,但无显著差异.结论:腰麻-硬膜外联合在妊高征剖宫产手术中的优势明显,是一种较好的麻醉方法,对于各种原因未能成功实施椎管内麻醉及重症产妇,可选择静脉麻醉.     

A randomized trial comparing low-dose combined spinal-epidural anesthesia and conventional epidural anesthesia for cesarean section in severe preeclampsia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A prospective, randomized study was designed to compare the maternal and neonatal effects of conventional epidural anesthesia and combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSE) for Cesarean section in severe preeclamptic patients. Additionally, two strategies in the prophylactic management of hypotension in severe preeclamptic patients were evaluated: fluid preloading or prophylactic ephedrine. METHODS: Thirty nonlaboring women with severe preeclampsia (PET), scheduled for an elective Cesarean section, were randomised into three groups: epidural anesthesia with prophylactic fluid loading (EA-F), combined spinal epidural anesthesia with prophylactic fluid loading (CSE-F), or combined spinal epidural anesthesia with prophylactic ephedrine (CSE-V). Hemodynamic data were recorded prior and after induction of regional anesthesia at five-minute intervals. The total amount of intravenous administered fluid and the total dose of vasopressors were recorded. RESULTS: Hemodynamic data were similar between the three groups. The incidence and duration of hypotension was similar in all three groups. Significantly more ephedrine was used in the CSE-V group as compared to the CSE-F group. More lactated Ringer's solution was used in the CSE-F group as compared to the CSE-V group. There were no hypertensive episodes and none of the patients developed pulmonary edema. The time period from induction until the start of surgery and the duration of surgery were significantly shorter in both CSE-groups. Neonatal outcome was comparable between the three groups. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that combined spinal and epidural anesthesia (CSE) is a safe alternative to conventional epidural anesthesia in severe preeclamptic women and that the prophylactic use of ephedrine is effective and safe to prevent and treat spinal hypotension after combined spinal and epidural anesthesia for Cesarean section in severe preeclamptic women.     

重比重联合轻比重罗哌卡因在蛛网膜下腔麻醉剖宫产术中的应用

目的 分析剖宫产术中使用重比重罗哌卡因联合轻比重罗哌卡因的蛛网膜下腔麻醉与单一重比重罗哌卡因蛛网膜下腔麻醉效果及血流动力学变化. 方法 选择142例在蛛网膜下腔-硬膜外腔联合麻醉下拟行择期剖宫产术患者.根据标准纳入的患者(132例)按计算机编码被随机分配到单一重比重罗哌卡因组(A组)或重比重和轻比重罗哌卡因联合组(B组),每组66例.主要观察指标是低血压的发生率,次要观察指标是感觉阻滞水平. 结果 两组均表现出相似的麻醉效果.A组低血压发生率比B组显著增高(74％比45％)(P＜0.05),A组恶心发生率比B组显著增加(23％比8％)(P＜0.05). 结论 重比重联合轻比重罗哌卡因蛛网膜下腔麻醉相比单一的重比重罗哌卡因蛛网膜下腔麻醉可提供相似的麻醉效果及更加稳定的血流动力学.     

去甲肾上腺素预防腰硬联合麻醉下剖宫产低血压对母婴的影响

目的研究去甲肾上腺素预防腰硬联合麻醉下剖宫产低血压对母婴的影响。方法采用前瞻性研究方法,选择腰硬联合麻醉下择期行剖宫产的患者60例,按区组分A、B、C三组,每组20例。在麻醉开始前20 min分别按照以下速度恒速泵入药品,A组去甲肾上腺素0.05μg/kg·min,B组去甲肾上腺素0.1μg/kg·min,C组生理盐水0.1μg/kg·min,均持续20分钟停止。三组患者均在L_(3-4)间隙注入0.5%罗哌卡因3 mL行腰麻。观察记录三组患者以下时间点的平均动脉压(MAP)及心率(HR)变化,麻醉前(T_1)、腰麻给药(T_2)、给药后5 min(T_3)、给药后10 min(T_4)、给药后20 min(T_5)和术毕(T_6)术后8 h(T_7)和术后24 h(T_8),观察三组新生儿Apgar评分、血气分析、产妇不良反应发生情况。结果三组患者T_1时MAP及HR差异无统计学意义,A、B两组患者在各时间点MAP及HR差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。与T_1时比较,C组患者T_3、T_4、T_5时MAP明显降低,T_4时HR明显降低,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。T_3、T_4、T_5时C组患者MAP明显低于A组和B组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。三组胎儿脐血PaO_2、PaCO_2、PH水平对比均不明显,差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。A、B组患者恶心、呕吐、头痛发生率均显著低于C组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。三组新生儿1 min、5 min的Apgar评分比较不明显,差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论麻醉前去甲肾上腺素0.05μg/kg·min可有效预防腰硬联合麻醉下剖宫产低血压,且对母婴的影响较小,安全性较佳。     

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

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

Regional anaesthesia for caesarean section in severe preeclampsia: spinal anaesthesia is the preferred choice

Standard textbooks advocate epidural rather than spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section in severe preeclampsia. The basis for this recommendation is the theoretical risk of severe hypotension but no published scientific studies have been identified to support this assertion. We therefore designed a prospective study to compare spinal versus epidural anaesthesia in severely pre-eclamptic patients requiring hypotensive therapy. Following ethics committee approval, 28 women with preeclampsia requiring hypotensive medication who were scheduled for urgent (not emergency) or elective caesarean section consented to receive epidural or spinal anaesthesia by random assignment. Seven patients were excluded due to protocol violations. Four of these were in the epidural group of which two were excluded due to inadequate analgesia. No spinal patient was excluded because of inadequate analgesia. Mean ephedrine dosage was 5.2 mg (range 0-24 mg) in the spinal group and 6.3 mg (range 0-27 mg) in the epidural group. Six of the 11 patients in the spinal group required no ephedrine as did five of 10 in the epidural group. One patient in the spinal group suffered from mild intraoperative pain. By contrast in the epidural group three patients had mild pain and four others had pain severe enough to warrant intraoperative analgesia. There were no differences in neonatal outcomes. These findings support recent studies suggesting the safety and efficacy of spinal anaesthesia in this group of patients.     

0.75%罗哌卡因复合不同剂量舒芬太尼腰麻在剖宫产术中的应用

目的比较小剂量罗哌卡因复合不同剂量舒芬太尼腰麻在剖宫产术中的麻醉效果。方法腰-硬联合麻醉下行择期剖宫产产妇144例,随机均分为四组,腰麻药为0.75%罗哌卡因1.5ml(11.25mg)复合舒芬太尼0μg(A组)、2.5μg(B组)、5.0μg(C组)、7.5μg(D组)。观察产妇麻醉效果,感觉、运动阻滞程度和时间,产妇血压变化、恶心呕吐、寒战、瘙痒、术后镇痛时间及新生儿Apgar评分等。结果四组产妇最高阻滞平面、最大运动阻滞评分及运动恢复时间差异无统计学意义。C、D组镇痛时间明显长于A、B组(P<0.05)。D组麻醉效果并不明显增强,术后镇痛时间也未见明显延长,但瘙痒的发生率更高,程度更严重。结论小剂量罗哌卡因(11.25mg)复合5.0μg舒芬太尼具有麻醉效果满意、术后镇痛时间延长和不良反应较小等优点,可安全用于剖宫产术。     

Effect of heparin on the activated partial thromboplastin time in parturients receiving combined spinal and epidural anesthesia for caesarean section

BACKGROUND: Although administration of heparin is a useful method for preventing deep venous thromboembolism, one limitation is the increased risk of bleeding. In this retrospective investigation, we evaluated the effect of heparin on the activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) in parturients who received caesarean section under combined spinal and epidural anesthesia. METHODS: In order to prevent deep venous thromboembolism, heparin 5000 units twice daily, was subcutaneously given in 199 parturients who received caesarean section under combined spinal and epidural anesthesia. Measured APTT was compared between before and after administration of the heparin. RESULTS: The heparin extended APTT from 29.6 +/- 2.5 sec to 35.4 +/- 5.9 sec (P < 0.05). An extended APTT by 1.5 times or more was found in 1.1% of the patients. There was no deep thromboembolism nor increased bleeding, including intra-abdominal and epidural hematoma. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneously administered heparin, 5000 units twice daily, might have a role in preventing deep venous thromboembolism in parturients undergoing caesarean section. Strict vigilance, however, should be provided against increased bleeding associated with epidural hematoma in parturients with an indwelling epidural catheter.     

Caesarean section to prevent supine hypotension syndrome

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of posture after spinal anesthesia with 2% lidocaine and 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine in parturients undergoing caesarean section and to demonstrate our modified combined spinal epidural (CSE) method. METHODS: The patients in groups 2%lido (S) and (L) received 2 ml of 2% lidocaine and the patients in groups 0.5%bupi (S) and (L) received 1.6 ml of 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine. The two (S) groups were turned into the supine position after spinal injection and the two (L) groups were kept on their left side for 10 or 15 minutes before they turned supine. All the patients received an epidural injection of 6 ml of 2% lidocaine or 6 ml of 1% ropivacaine 16 minutes after spinal injection. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the level of analgesia between the (S) groups and the (L) groups 10 minutes after spinal injection (P<0.05). The systolic blood pressures 10 minutes after spinal injection were significantly decreased than those before spinal injection in the (S)groups (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our modified CSE method can provide beneficial effects on full term pregnant women by preventing hypotension due to spinal anesthesia.     

A comparison between epidural anaesthesia using alkalinized solution and spinal (combined spinal/epidural) anaesthesia for elective caesarean section

In a double-blind investigation, 40 women undergoing elective lower segment caesarean section were randomly divided into two groups. Group I (n = 20) received spinal anaesthesia with 2.0 ml hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine using a single space combined spinal epidural technique. Group II (n = 20) received epidural anaesthesia with a local anaesthetic mixture consisting of 0.5% bupivacaine plain 10 ml and 2% lignocaine plain 10 ml to which was added 0.1 ml of adrenaline 1 in 1000 and 2 ml of 8.4% sodium bicarbonate. The mean onset times of sensory block to T4 and grade 3 motor blockade were 7.9 min and 9.5 min respectively in the spinal group, compared to 13.1 min and 16.3 min in the epidural group. These differences were both significant (P < 0.05). There was no difference between the two groups in the quality of analgesia or the incidence of hypotension and nausea. The relatively rapid onset of the pH adjusted epidural solution may provide an attractive alternative to spinal anaesthesia. Moreover, this study underlines the important role of pH adjusted epidural solutions in parturients progressing to emergency caesarean section with epidural catheters previously inserted for labour analgesia.     

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.