Prospective randomized comparison of cerebrospinal fluid aspiration and conventional popping methods using 27-gauge spinal needles in patients undergoing spinal anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Performing spinal anaesthesia using the conventional popping method with a 27-gauge (27G) spinal needle is technically difficult. In this study, we compared the aspiration and conventional popping method for spinal anaesthesia using 27G Quincke-type needles. METHODS: This prospective, randomized study enrolled 90 patients, aged 19 to 65 years, with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III, who were undergoing spinal anaesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups using a computer-generated random number table: patients receiving spinal anaesthesia using the aspiration method, in which the needle is advanced with continuous aspiration, or the conventional popping method. The primary outcome measure was the success rate of the first attempt to perform dural puncture. Number of attempts and passages, withdrawal cases, successful attempt time, total procedure time, and actual depth of dural puncture were recorded. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients were included in the study. In the aspiration group, the success rate of first attempt for dural puncture was 93.3%, compared with 72.1% in the popping group (P = 0.019). Success involving needle withdrawal was recorded in 4 (8.9%) patients in the aspiration group and 13 (30.2%) in the popping group (P = 0.024). In the popping group, the number of attempts was significantly higher (P = 0.044), and total procedure time was significantly longer (P = 0.023). Actual depths of dural puncture were deeper in the popping group than in the aspiration group (P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: The aspiration method using a 27G Quincke-type needle offers clinical benefits for dural puncture compared with the conventional popping method for spinal anaesthesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical research information service number: KCT0002815, registered 21/Apr/2018. Retrospectively registered.

A comparison of ultrasound-guided interscalene and supraclavicular blocks for post-operative analgesia after shoulder surgery.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to interscalene block, there was little information regarding the analgesic efficacy of supraclavicular block for shoulder surgery. This study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy and side effects of interscalene and supraclavicular blocks for shoulder surgery. METHODS: Patients scheduled for shoulder surgery were assigned to receive either ultrasound-guided interscalene (n = 25) or supraclavicular block (n = 24) with 20 ml of 0.375% ropivacaine. We assessed the duration of post-operative analgesia as a primary outcome and pain scores, supplemental analgesia, diaphragmatic excursion, motor block, fingertip numbness, side effects, and patient satisfaction as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The duration of post-operative analgesia was not statistically different between groups: 868 (800-1440) min for supraclavicular block vs. 800 (731-922) min for interscalene block (median difference -85 min, 95% CI, -283 to 3 min, P = 0.095). The incidence of diaphragmatic paresis was significantly lower in the supraclavicular block group compared with that in the interscalene block group, both at 30 min after the block (66.7% vs. 92%, P = 0.021) and in the post-anaesthesia care unit (62.5% vs. 92%, P = 0.024). Motor block was higher in the supraclavicular block group in the post-anaesthesia care unit, however, not at 24 h. Other secondary outcomes were similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed no statistically significant difference in the duration of post-operative analgesia between the supraclavicular and interscalene blocks. However, the supraclavicular block was associated with a lower incidence of diaphragmatic paresis compared with that of the interscalene block after shoulder surgery.

Heparin attenuated neutrophil infiltration but did not affect renal injury induced by ischemia reperfusion.

Although heparin is better known as an anticoagulant, it also has several anti-inflammatory effects. Heparin is known to inhibit neutrophil adhesion, chemotaxis and oxygen free radical production. In addition, heparin is also known to act as an oxygen radical scavenger. Our hypothesis was that heparin would attenuate renal ischemia reperfusion injury. In this study, we investigated whether heparin had a protective effect on renal ischemia reperfusion injury. Sheep (n = 12) were prepared for the chronic study with venous, arterial and urinary catheters inserted. In addition, pneumatic occluders and ultrasonic flow probes were placed on renal arteries. After a 5-day recovery period, the sheep were randomized to either a heparin treatment group (400 IU/kg i.v. bolus 10 minutes before renal artery occlusion, followed by a continuous effusion 25,000 IU in 250 ml of 0.9% NaCl at 10 ml/hr, n = 6) or a control group (n = 6), which received an equivalent volume of 0.9% NaCl. All the sheep then underwent 90 minutes of bilateral renal ischemia followed by 24 hours of reperfusion. Blood urea nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine (Scr), and creatinine clearance (CrCl) were determined at various intervals during both the ischemic and reperfusion periods. Kidney tissue samples were obtained at autopsy for histologic examination. As a result, there were significant differences in the degree of inflammation (1.50 +/- 1.24 Vs 0.50 +/- 0.79, P < 0.05) between the control and heparin treatment groups, but not in the degree of injury (2.83 +/- 0.44 Vs 2.33 +/- 0.28). In this study, heparin significantly attenuated polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMNs) infiltration within the interstitium, but it did not affect the degree of renal damage as measured by urinary chemistries or renal tubular damage as assessed by histopathologic evaluation.