Chloroprocaine for spinal anesthesia: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recent volunteer and clinical studies of chloroprocaine (CP) have evaluated its use for outpatient spinal anesthesia. This retrospective review describes the discharge characteristics and reported side effects of spinal CP in a large number of patients undergoing outpatient procedures. METHODS: All patients who received spinal anesthesia for ambulatory procedures over a 20-month period were accessed using computer-generated reports. Charts from 601 anesthetics were analyzed for spinal drug used, block characteristics, side effects and discharge data. RESULTS: CP was the most frequently used spinal anesthetic (84% of cases, n=503) for outpatient procedures. CP (median dose 40 mg, range 20-60 mg) times from injection to ambulation and discharge were 107±24 and 171±45 min, respectively. Lidocaine (median dose 60 mg, range 30-100 mg, n=84) times from injection to ambulation and discharge were 155±40 and 224±57 min, respectively (P<0.05). The incidence of urinary retention, the most common side effect, was similar in both groups. There were no reports of transient neurologic symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: For ambulatory patients at our institution, the time to achievement of discharge criteria was significantly reduced with CP 40 vs. lidocaine 60 mg. There have been no reports of perioperative neurologic injury with the introduction of CP as a spinal anesthetic at our institution.

Procaine compared with lidocaine for incidence of transient neurologic symptoms.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Transient neurologic symptoms (TNS) have been reported to occur after 16% to 40% of ambulatory lidocaine spinal anesthetics. Patient discomfort and the possibility of underlying lidocaine neurotoxicity have prompted a search for alternative local anesthetic agents. We compared the incidence of TNS with procaine or lidocaine spinal anesthesia in a 2:1 dose ratio. METHODS: Seventy outpatients undergoing knee arthroscopy were blindly randomized to receive either 100 mg hyperbaric procaine or 50 mg hyperbaric lidocaine. An interview by a blinded investigator established the presence or absence of TNS, defined as pain in the buttocks or lower extremities beginning within 24 hours of surgery. Onset of sensory and motor block, patient discomfort, supplemental anesthetics, and side effects were recorded by the unblinded managing anesthesia team. Anesthetic adequacy was determined from these data by a single blinded investigator. Hospital discharge time was recorded from the patient record. Groups were compared using appropriate statistics with a P < .05 considered significant. RESULTS: TNS occurred in 6% of procaine patients versus 31% of lidocaine patients (P = .007). Sensory block with procaine and lidocaine was similar, while motor block was decreased with procaine (P < .05). A trend toward a higher rate of block inadequacy (17% v 3%, P = .11) and intraoperative nausea (17% v 3%, P = .11) occurred with procaine. Average hospital discharge time with procaine was increased by 29 minutes (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of TNS was substantially lower with procaine than with lidocaine. However, procaine resulted in a lower overall quality of anesthesia and a prolonged average discharge time. If the shortfalls of procaine as studied can be overcome, it may provide a suitable alternative to lidocaine for outpatient spinal anesthesia to minimize the risk of TNS.

The regional anesthesia "learning curve". What is the minimum number of epidural and spinal blocks to reach consistency?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Wide variability exists in the amount of regional anesthesia practice to which residents are exposed during training. The number of attempts at various blocks before a trainee becomes proficient at performing these regional anesthetic techniques is not known. This study addresses the question: What is the minimum number of blocks a resident must perform to reach consistency during training in these techniques? METHODS: Every regional anesthetic technique attempted by all beginning CA-1 anesthesiology residents (n = 7) during their first 6 months of training (July 1993 to December 1993) were recorded on a daily basis. Nonregional anesthetic techniques attempted were recorded for comparison. The objective measures used to define the degree of success were obtaining cerebrospinal fluid during attempted spinal anesthesia, subsequent anesthetic block during epidural placement, and detection of end-tidal carbon dioxide for endotracheal intubation. RESULTS: An average of 77 +/- 9 epidural anesthetics, 44 +/- 6 spinal anesthetics, and 86 +/- 13 endotracheal intubations were attempted during the 6 months of training. The learning curves for each technique are of similar shape. Residents show significant (P < .05) improvement over baseline after 20 spinal and 25 epidural anesthetics, but a 90% success rate is not reached and maintained until 45 spinal and 60 epidural anesthetics are performed. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 20-25 procedures each are necessary before improvement in the techniques of spinal and epidural anesthesia is demonstrated by residents in training. If a 90% success rate is desired, 45 and 60 attempts at spinal and epidural anesthesia, respectively, may be necessary.

Prospective study of the incidence of transient radicular irritation in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable controversy regarding the role of subarachnoid 5% hyperbaric lidocaine in the syndrome transient radicular irritation (TRI). This randomized, double-blinded, prospective study was designed to determine the incidence of TRI and identify factors possibly contributing to its development. METHODS: One hundred fifty-nine ASA physical status 1 or 2 patients undergoing outpatient knee arthroscopy or unilateral inguinal hernia repair were prospectively randomized to receive spinal anesthesia with 5% hyperbaric lidocaine with epinephrine (60 mg with 0.2 mg epinephrine for arthroscopy or 75 mg with 0.2 mg epinephrine for hernia repair), 2% isobaric lidocaine without epinephrine (60 mg for arthroscopy or 75 mg for hernia repair), or 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine without epinephrine (7.5 mg for arthroscopy or 9.0 mg for hernia repair) in a double-blinded fashion. On the 3rd postoperative day, patients were contacted by a blinded investigator and questioned regarding the incidence of postoperative complications including TRI, defined as back pain with radiation down one or both buttocks or legs occurring within 24 h after surgery. Postoperatively, time from injection to block resolution, ambulation, voiding, and ready for discharge were recorded by a postanesthesia care unit nurse blinded to the group assignment. RESULTS: The incidence of TRI was greater in patients receiving lidocaine than in those receiving bupivacaine (16% vs. 0%; P = 0.003). There was no difference in the incidence of TRI between the patients receiving 5% hyperbaric lidocaine with epinephrine and those receiving 2% isobaric lidocaine without epinephrine (16% vs. 16%; P = 0.98). The incidence of TRI was greater in patients undergoing arthroscopy than in those undergoing hernia repair (13% vs. 5%; P = 0.04). There was no difference in discharge times in patients receiving bupivacaine versus those receiving hyperbaric lidocaine with epinephrine (292 vs. 322 min; P = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of TRI is greater with lidocaine than bupivacaine, decreasing the lidocaine concentration to 2% does not prevent TRI, and surgical position may be an important contributing factor. Discharge times at our institution are not different when equipotent doses of 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine or 5% hyperbaric lidocaine with 0.2 mg epinephrine are used in ambulatory patients undergoing spinal anesthesia.

Sedation during spinal anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Central neuraxial anesthesia has been reported to decrease the dose of both intravenous and inhalational anesthetics needed to reach a defined level of sedation. The mechanism behind this phenomenon is speculated to be decreased afferent stimulation of the reticular activating system. The authors performed a two-part study (nonrandomized pilot study and a subsequent randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study) using the Bispectral Index (BIS) monitor to quantify the degree of sedation in unmedicated volunteers undergoing spinal anesthesia. METHODS: Twelve volunteers underwent BIS monitoring and observer sedation scoring (Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale [OAA/S]) before and after spinal anesthesia with 50 mg hyperbaric lidocaine, 5%. Subsequently, 16 volunteers blinded to the study were randomized to receive spinal anesthesia with 50 mg hyperbaric lidocaine, 5% (n = 10) or placebo (n = 6) and underwent BIS and OAA/S monitoring. RESULTS: In part I, significant changes in BIS scores of the volunteers occurred progressively (P = 0.003). The greatest variations from baseline BIS measurement occurred at 30 and 70 min. In part II, there were significant decreases in OAA/S and self-sedation scores for patients receiving spinal anesthesia versuscontrol patients (P = 0.04 and 0. 01, respectively). The greatest decrease in OAA/S scores occurred at 60 min. BIS scores were similar between groups (P = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Spinal anesthesia is accompanied by significant sedation progressively when compared with controls as measured by OAA/S and self-sedation scores. This effect was not related to block height. The late sedation observed by OAA/S at 60 min may indicate a second mechanism of sedation, such as delayed rostral spread of local anesthetics. BIS was not a sensitive measure of the sedation associated with spinal anesthesia in the randomized, blinded portion of this study.

The neurotoxicity of drugs given intrathecally (spinal)

Overall, most spinal drugs in clinical use have been poorly studied for spinal cord and nerve root toxicity. Laboratory studies indicate that all local anesthetics are neurotoxic in high concentrations and that lidocaine and tetracaine have neurotoxic potential in clinically used concentrations. However, spinal anesthesia (including lidocaine and tetracaine) has a long and enviable history of safety. Spinal analgesics such as morphine, fentanyl, sufentanil, clonidine, and neostigmine seem to have a low potential for neurotoxicity based on laboratory and extensive clinical use. Most antioxidants, preservatives, and excipients used in commercial formulations seem to have a low potential for neurotoxicity. In addition to summarizing current information, we hope that this review stimulates future research on spinal drugs to follow a systematic approach to determining potential neurotoxicity. Such an approach would examine histologic, physiologic, and behavioral testing in several species, followed by cautious histologic, physiologic, and clinical testing in human volunteers and patients with terminal cancer refractory to conventional therapy.

Dilution of spinal lidocaine does not alter the incidence of transient neurologic symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Although it has been suggested that the dilution of 5% hyperbaric lidocaine before injection for spinal anesthesia may decrease the incidence of transient neurologic symptoms, previous studies have not noted a decreased incidence between 5% and 2% lidocaine. The aim of the current study was to determine whether the incidence of transient neurologic symptoms could be altered by further diluting spinal lidocaine from 2.0% to 0.5%. METHODS: One hundred nine patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 or 2 undergoing outpatient knee arthroscopy were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive 50 mg hyperbaric spinal lidocaine as a 2.0%, 1.0%, or 0.5% concentration. On the third postoperative day, patients were contacted by a blinded investigator and questioned regarding the incidence of postoperative complications, including transient neurologic symptoms, defined as pain or dysthesia in one or both buttocks or legs occurring within 24 h of surgery. RESULTS: The incidence of transient neurologic symptoms did not differ among patients receiving 2.0% (incidence of 15.8%), 1.0% (incidence of 22.2%), and 0.5% (incidence of 17.1%) lidocaine (P = 0.756). CONCLUSIONS: For ambulatory patients undergoing arthroscopy, the incidence of transient neurologic symptoms is not reduced by decreasing spinal lidocaine concentrations from 2.0% to 1.0% or 0.5%. The incidences of transient neurologic symptoms with the 0.5%, 1.0%, and 2.0% solutions are similar to previously reported incidences for 5.0% lidocaine, suggesting that dilution of lidocaine from 5.0% to 0.5% does not change the incidence of these symptoms.

Dose-response characteristics of spinal bupivacaine in volunteers. Clinical implications for ambulatory anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Small doses of bupivacaine may be a reasonable choice for spinal anesthesia for patients having ambulatory surgery. However, few dose-response data are available to guide the selection of reasonable doses of bupivacaine for different ambulatory procedures. METHODS: Eight volunteers per group were randomized to receive 3.75, 7.5, or 11.25 mg of 0.75% bupivacaine with 8.25% dextrose in a double-blind manner. Sensory block was assessed with pinprick, transcutaneous electrical stimulation equivalent to surgical incision at the ankle, knee, pubis, and umbilicus, and with duration of tolerance to pneumatic thigh tourniquet. Motor block at the quadriceps and gastrocnemius muscles was assessed with isometric force dynamometry. Times until recovery from spinal anesthesia were recorded. Dose-response relationships were determined by linear regressions. Mean (95% confidence intervals) for durations of sensory and motor block per milligram of bupivacaine administered were calculated from linear regressions. RESULTS: Significant dose-response relationships (P < 0.006) were determined for sensory block, motor block, and time until recovery (R from 0.6 to 0.9). Within the range of doses studied, each additional milligram of bupivacaine was associated with an increase in duration of tolerance to transcutaneous electrical stimulation of 10 (7 to 13) min, an increase in tolerance to tourniquet of 7 (2 to 11) min, an increase in duration of motor block of 8 (5 to 12) min, and an increase in time until recovery of 21 (17 to 25) min. CONCLUSIONS: These dose-response data may guide the selection of reasonable doses of bupivacaine for various outpatient procedures, although individual responses vary.

Comparison of 5% with dextrose, 1.5% with dextrose, and 1.5% dextrose-free lidocaine solutions for spinal anesthesia in human volunteers.

The use of lidocaine in concentrations less than 5% for spinal anesthesia may be advantageous but has not been carefully studied. Lidocaine 50 mg (1.5% with dextrose and 1.5% dextrose-free) was administered to eight volunteers in a randomized, double blind, cross-over fashion. All of these subjects had previously received 5% lidocaine with dextrose using the same experimental protocol. Sensory analgesia was assessed with pinprick, transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) equivalent to surgical incision, and duration of tolerance of pneumatic thigh tourniquet. Motor block was assessed with isometric force dynamometry. Peak dermatomal level was the highest and duration until regression of pinprick the longest with the 5% solution (P < 0.05). Duration of tolerance to TES was increased (33 +/- 10 min) with the 5% solution (P < 0.04). Duration of tolerance to tourniquet pain was increased (11 +/- 3 min) with the 5% solution (P < 0.02). Duration of motor block was increased (45 +/- 9 min) with the 5% and the 1.5% without dextrose solutions (P < 0.04). Time to void was increased (33 +/- 5 min) with the 5% solution (P < 0.03). In conclusion, the use of different solutions of lidocaine for spinal anesthesia results in significant differences in sensory and motor block and time until recovery of micturition.

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

UNLABELLED: 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.

The effects of epinephrine on lidocaine spinal anesthesia: a cross-over study.

The efficacy of epinephrine for prolonging the duration of lidocaine spinal anesthesia remains controversial. Seven volunteers were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive two 50-mg lidocaine (in dextrose 7.5%) spinal anesthetics with and without epinephrine (0.2 mg). Sensory analgesia was assessed with transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) equivalent to surgical incision and compared to standard pinprick dermatomal levels. Motor block was assessed with surface electromyography (EMG) and isometric force dynamometry. Intravenous fluids were administered by a standardized regimen, and time until ability to void was determined. Addition of epinephrine significantly prolonged duration of surgical anesthesia in the lumbar and sacral dermatomes by an average of 16-29 min (P = 0.03), but not in thoracic dermatomes. Although there was a trend toward prolongation of motor block with addition of epinephrine, this did not reach statistical significance. Epinephrine significantly prolonged duration until ability to void from 153 +/- 27 to 234 +/- 50 min (P = 0.0001). Thus, addition of epinephrine to lidocaine may be indicated to prolong duration of anesthesia for lower body operations. However, delayed recovery of ability to void may also prolong time until discharge after ambulatory surgery.

Spinal nerve function in five volunteers experiencing transient neurologic symptoms after lidocaine subarachnoid anesthesia.

UNLABELLED: The etiology of transient neurologic symptoms (TNS) after 5% lidocaine spinal anesthesia remains undetermined. Previous case reports have shown that patients acutely experiencing TNS have no abnormalities on neurologic examination or magnetic resonance imaging. The aim of our study was to determine whether volunteers with TNS would exhibit abnormalities in spinal nerve electrophysiology. Twelve volunteers with no history of back pain or neurologic disease underwent baseline electromyography (EMG), nerve conduction studies, and somatosensory-evoked potential (SSEP) testing. Then, the volunteers were administered 50 mg of 5% hyperbaric lidocaine spinal anesthesia and were placed in a low lithotomy position (legs on four pillows). The next day, all volunteers underwent follow-up EMG, nerve conduction, and SSEP testing and were questioned and examined for the presence of complications including TNS (defined as pain or dysthesia in one or both buttocks or legs occurring within 24 h of spinal anesthesia). Volunteers who had TNS underwent additional EMG testing 4-6 wk later. Five of the 12 volunteers reported TNS. No volunteer had an abnormal EMG, nerve conduction study, or SSEP at 24 h follow up, nor were there any changes in EMG studies at delayed testing in the five volunteers experiencing TNS. On statistical analysis, the right peroneal and the right tibial nerve differed significantly for all volunteers from pre- to postspinal testing. When comparing pre- and postspinal testing of the TNS and non-TNS volunteers, statistically significant changes occurred in the nerve conduction tests of the right peroneal and left tibial nerve. There was no difference in measurements of F response, H reflex latency, amplitude, or velocity for either leg. Multivariate analysis of variance showed no significant difference between TNS and non-TNS volunteers for the changes in the nine nerve conduction tests when considered together (P = 0.4). We conclude that acute TNS after lidocaine spinal anesthesia did not result in consistent abnormalities detectable by EMG, nerve conduction studies, or SSEP in five volunteers. IMPLICATIONS: Electrophysiologic testing in volunteers experiencing transient neurologic symptoms is not abnormal.

The effect of epinephrine on small-dose hyperbaric bupivacaine spinal anesthesia: clinical implications for ambulatory surgery.

UNLABELLED: The effect of adding epinephrine to small doses of spinal bupivacaine on the duration of sensory motor block has not been carefully investigated. Twelve volunteers underwent hyperbaric bupivacaine spinal anesthesia (7.5 mg) with and without epinephrine (0.2 mg) in a randomized, double-blind, cross-over fashion. Sensory block was assessed with pinprick, transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) equivalent to surgical stimulation (at umbilicus, pubis, knee, and ankle), and tolerance of a pneumatic thigh tourniquet. Motor block was assessed with isometric force dynamometry. Discharge criteria were defined as return of pinprick sensation to dermatome S2, ability to ambulate, and ability to urinate. Extent of sensory block to pinprick over time was unaffected by the addition of epinephrine. However, epinephrine prolonged tolerance of TES at the pubis, knee, and ankle (33-48 min, P < 0.05) and of thigh tourniquet (30 min, P < 0.01). Motor block was prolonged by epinephrine at the quadriceps and gastrocnemius muscles (by 23 and 51 min, respectively, P < 0.002). Achievement of discharge criteria was prolonged by 48 min by the addition of epinephrine (P < 0.01). Thus, epinephrine may prolong surgical anesthesia for lower abdominal and lower extremity surgery and delay time until patients achieve discharge criteria. IMPLICATIONS: Using a cross-over study design, 12 volunteers underwent bupivacaine spinal anesthesia with and without epinephrine. This study suggests that adding epinephrine to bupivacaine may prolong surgical anesthesia and also delay patients' discharge.

Fentanyl prolongs lidocaine spinal anesthesia without prolonging recovery.

Lidocaine spinal anesthesia is a popular anesthetic for short procedures due to its brief duration. The addition of fentanyl may improve the quality and duration of lidocaine spinal anesthesia. Eight volunteers received plain lidocaine 5% in dextrose (50 mg) both with and without 20 micrograms of fentanyl in a randomized, double-blind, cross-over fashion. Sensory analgesia was assessed with pinprick, cold, touch, transcutaneous electrical stimulation equivalent to surgical incision, and duration of tolerance of pneumatic thigh tourniquet. Motor block was assessed with isometric force dynamometry. Regression of pinprick, touch, and cold was prolonged with fentanyl. Duration of tolerance of electrical stimulation at the umbilicus, hip, knee, and ankle was increased with fentanyl (181% increase from plain lidocaine on average; P < 0.01). Duration of tolerance of tourniquet-induced pain was increased by an average of 48% with addition of fentanyl (P = 0.02). Neither motor block nor time to void was prolonged with fentanyl. Pruritus occurred in all subjects receiving fentanyl but was treated easily and were well tolerated. We recommend the addition of 20 micrograms of fentanyl to lidocaine spinal anesthesia as a means to improve duration of sensory anesthesia without prolonging recovery of motor function or time to micturition.