Intrathecal fentanyl-induced pruritus is more severe in combination with procaine than with lidocaine or bupivacaine.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Fentanyl is used as an additive to prolong intrathecal anesthesia with both lidocaine and low-dose bupivacaine in the outpatient setting to minimize voiding or discharge delays. Pruritus is the most common side effect. When using procaine as a substitute for lidocaine, we perceived an increased frequency and severity of pruritus. We compared prospectively the frequency and severity of itching with combinations of fentanyl with lidocaine, bupivacaine, and procaine. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, 135 patients requesting neuraxial anesthesia were asked to evaluate the presence and severity (using a 100 point verbal pruritus score [VPS]) of itching 30 minutes after injection of their spinal anesthetic, on arrival to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and at the time of resolution of their block. Choice of anesthetic drug and dose and the use of intravenous sedation was left to the discretion of the attending and resident anesthesiologist. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients received lidocaine and fentanyl, 47 received bupivacaine and fentanyl, and 55 received procaine and fentanyl. In the lidocaine group, 21% of patients experienced pruritus compared with 55% of the bupivacaine group and 55% of the procaine group (P =.003). The average VPS at 30 minutes postblock was 18.4 in the procaine group compared with 0 and 5.5 in the lidocaine and bupivacaine groups (P =.06). On admission to the PACU, it was 37 compared with 16 and 20 for lidocaine and bupivacaine, respectively (P =.006). CONCLUSION: Procaine produces a higher frequency of pruritus than that seen with lidocaine-fentanyl combinations and a greater severity of pruritus than seen with lidocaine-fentanyl and bupivacaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2001;26:252-256.

Femoral nerve block with 0.25% or 0.5% bupivacaine improves postoperative analgesia following outpatient arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament repair.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Femoral nerve block is effective in reducing postoperative pain after inpatient knee surgery. We studied its efficacy compared with standard analgesia following outpatient anterior cruciate ligament repair, including the duration of analgesia and the effect of different concentrations of bupivacaine. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval and informed consent, we prospectively randomized patients to receive, in a blinded fashion, either a sham block, a femoral nerve block with 25 mL 0.25% bupivacaine, or with 25 mL 0.5% bupivacaine after anterior cruciate ligament repair under epidural anesthesia. Verbal analog pain scores were evaluated by a blinded observer at 20 and 40 minutes after injection. Patients with pain >4 (out of 10) were assessed for the presence of a block and offered a supplemental block if no anesthesia was present at either evaluation. By prospective agreement, any study group with 6 failures was excluded from further recruitment. After discharge, patients recorded pain scores and analgesic consumption in a diary, and estimated the time at which they perceived that analgesia and sensory block from the femoral nerve block resolved, based on an increase in pain, sensation, and strength in the leg. RESULTS: In the sham block group, 6 of 12 patients reported inadequate analgesia in the postanesthesia care unit (4 at 20 minutes, 2 at 40 minutes; greater than other groups, P <.003) and were excluded from further study. Patients with sham blocks had higher pain scores 20 minutes after the block, and requested intravenous analgesia more often. Bupivacaine 0.25% and 0.5% provided 23.2 +/- 7 and 25.7 +/- 11 hours of analgesia, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Femoral nerve block with 0.25% bupivacaine contributes significantly to multimodal postoperative analgesia in the immediate postoperative period following outpatient anterior cruciate ligament repair. Both doses of bupivacaine studied provided analgesia for the first night after surgery.

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.

Sameridine is safe and effective for spinal anesthesia: a comparative dose-ranging study with lidocaine for inguinal hernia repair.

UNLABELLED: Sameridine is a new compound with local anesthetic and analgesic properties when injected intrathecally. We studied the anesthetic and analgesic efficacy of three doses of isobaric sameridine (15, 20, and 23 mg) compared with 100 mg of hyperbaric lidocaine for spinal anesthesia in 140 healthy male patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. Patients received spinal anesthesia with 4 mL of the study drug injected at the L2-3 or L3-4 interspace in the lateral decubitus position. All three doses of sameridine provided spinal anesthesia similar to lidocaine, with a slightly longer time to reach peak block height. The failure rate was highest in the 15-mg sameridine group, and accrual was discontinued in that group after 35 patients. The duration of blockade was shorter with lidocaine, but the time to voiding and ambulation was similar in all groups. Patients receiving sameridine were less likely to request morphine for postoperative analgesia and were less likely to request any analgesia in the first 4 h after injection of the drug. Use of oral analgesics (hydrocodone and acetaminophen) was similar in all groups after the first 4 h of the 24-h observation. We conclude that, in the three doses studied, sameridine provided spinal anesthesia similar to lidocaine, but with residual analgesia after drug injection that reduced the need for systemic analgesics in the first 4 h postoperatively. IMPLICATIONS: In this clinical trial, we show the potential efficacy of a class of drugs that can produce both spinal anesthesia and postoperative analgesia when used for hernia repair.

Ropivacaine 0.25% and 0.5%, but not 0.125%, provide effective wound infiltration analgesia after outpatient hernia repair, but with sustained plasma drug levels.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ropivacaine is a long-acting local anesthetic similar to bupivacaine, but with lower cardiac toxicity and intrinsic vasoconstrictive properties that may reduce the risk and extent of systemic plasma absorption. Plasma levels and risks are associated with the total dose used and the extent of absorption, with lower doses potentially representing less risk. Although both 0.5% and 0.75% ropivacaine provide adequate analgesia for wound infiltration after hernia repair, the efficacy of lower doses and the early systemic absorption have not been reported. METHODS: We studied postoperative pain and systemic plasma levels following either the injection of 30 mL of saline or 0.125%, 0.25%, or 0.5% ropivacaine into the wounds in 110 healthy patients following hernia repair under spinal anesthesia. Pain was assessed using visual analog scale (VAS) scores and algometer readings at rest and after coughing, and oral analgesic requirements were assessed in the first 5 hours after surgery and for the week after discharge. RESULTS: Both 0.25% and 0.5% ropivacaine provided pain relief following surgery when compared with saline or 0.125%. No adverse reactions to the drug were reported in any group. Plasma levels of ropivacaine peaked between 30 and 60 minutes, at 0.109, 0.249, and 0.399 mg/L for 0.125%, 0.25%, and 0.5% concentrations, respectively. Although the levels were below those producing clinical symptoms, they remained elevated for the entire 2-hour sampling period. This implies an absorption-dependent elimination which is substantially longer than reported with other routes of injection. CONCLUSIONS: Ropivacaine 0.25% and 0.5% is adequate for pain relief after outpatient hernia repair, whereas the 0.125% solution is no more effective than saline. Prolonged systemic absorption from peripheral injection may be associated with prolonged elevations of plasma concentrations, which potentially could be associated with unexpectedly high plasma levels if repeated injections are performed in the perioperative period with higher concentrations or doses.

2-Chloroprocaine and bupivacaine are unreliable indicators of intravascular injection in the premedicated patient.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Epinephrine-containing test doses for detection of intravascular injection during epidural anesthesia may be unreliable or hazardous in beta-blocked, elderly, or pregnant patients. Subtoxic injections of lidocaine have been used as an alternative marker of intravascular injection in unpremedicated patients. We studied two groups of premedicated patients and unpremedicated subjects to evaluate the reliability of the local anesthetics bupivacaine (B) and 2-chloroprocaine (2-CP) as test dose injections. METHODS: Thirty ASA I and II subjects received blinded randomized injections of 2-CP, B, or normal saline via a peripheral vein. RESULTS: In group I, 10 healthy unpremedicated volunteers universally recognized injection of 90 mg 2-CP or 25 mg B, but did not reliably detect the injection of 60 mg 2-CP. In group II, 20 patients premedicated with 1 microg/kg fentanyl and 30 microg/kg midazolam could not reliably detect similar injections. Sixteen responded to the injection of 90 mg 2-CP, while 13 detected the 25 mg B test dose. A blinded observer rated only 12 of the subjective reports as conclusive of detection of intravascular injection after each drug. There were no false-positive reports in any group. CONCLUSIONS: While 90 mg 2-CP or 25 mg B may be reliable alternatives to epinephrine test doses in unpremedicated subjects, they are unreliable indicators of intravascular injection in the premedicated patient.

Monitoring opioids.

It appears that several conclusions can be justified by the current information available regarding the risks associated with epidural opioids: 1. This modality of analgesia provides superior pain relief following thoracotomy and upper abdominal surgery. 2. Respiratory depression from epidural opioids administered in appropriate doses appears to be no greater than that seen after patient-controlled intramuscular or intravenous opioid administration. 3. Dosage must be adjusted to account for patient age and other identified risk factors. 4. Morphine may represent a greater risk than fentanyl and subarachnoid injection a greater risk than epidural injection. 5. Monitoring of respiratory rate and level of consciousness appear to be adequate to detect respiratory depression. 6. Monitoring appears to be indicated for 12 hours following a bolus injection of morphine and for the entire duration of a continuous infusion, although it does not appear to be necessary following discontinuation of a continuous infusion. 7. Further data are needed on the risks associated with subarachnoid opioids and on the safety of patient-controlled administration of epidural opioids.

Epidural opioid delivery methods: bolus, continuous infusion, and patient-controlled epidural analgesia.

Multiple methods of delivery of epidural opioids are acceptable, including bolus injection, continuous infusion, and patient-controlled infusion. The incidence of side effects appears to be reduced with the use of continuous infusion techniques, especially with the liquid-soluble opioids, although these appear to be most effective when infused near the center of the dermatomal pain site. with more distant catheters, the water-soluble opioids are more effective, but there use is associated with more frequent side effects. The lowest dose requirement appears to be associated with PCEA, but further study is needed to confirm the theoretical safety and efficacy of this modality, especially if a constant background infusion is used along with the PCEA. At present, significant advantages appear to be obtainable by adding local anesthetic to the opioid infusion, but the ideal drug and dosage are yet to be determined.

Spinal anesthesia for outpatients: appropriate agents and techniques.

With attention to appropriate selection of drugs, techniques, and needles, spinal anesthesia offers significant advantages in the outpatient setting. The combination of rapid onset, high reliability, and technical ease, along with the lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, allows for rapid turnover and discharge. The incidence of headache should not be a limiting factor if appropriate small, rounded bevel needles are used, and the technique is used primarily in the population aged over 40 years.

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.

Aging reduces the reliability of epidural epinephrine test doses.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The authors recently determined that intravascular injection of an epinephrine test dose reliably produced an increase in heart rate > or = 20 beats/min in young individuals. However, aging is associated with a significant reduction in beta-adrenergic responsiveness. This study was designed to determine whether aging decreases the magnitude of heart rate (HR) increase after intravascular injection of epinephrine. METHODS: Heart rate and systolic blood pressure were recorded during randomized and double-blind injections of 3 mL lidocaine plain or lidocaine with 10 or 15 micrograms epinephrine in 30 elective surgical patients between 21 and 81 years old. RESULTS: Increasing age was associated with smaller increases in HR after intravascular injection of epinephrine. The reduction in HR increase was statistically significant after 10 micrograms (P = .006, r2 = .24), but not after 15 micrograms (P = .25, r2 = .05) of epinephrine. Heart rate increases were of greater magnitude for patients younger than 40 years old (P = .01 for 10 micrograms epinephrine, and P = .03 for 15 micrograms epinephrine). One patient (of 11) over 60 did not respond to the 15 micrograms test dose with tachycardia. Aging did not alter systolic blood pressure increases after 10 or 15 micrograms epinephrine (P = .27, r2 = .04 and P = .4, r2 = .03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Aging is associated with a reduction in the magnitude of HR increase after intravenous injection of epinephrine. The results suggest that to detect an intravascular injection in healthy people, a test dose containing 10 micrograms epinephrine will suffice before the age of 40. However, even 15 micrograms epinephrine will not be totally reliable in older patients, owing to decreased beta-adrenergic responsiveness.

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.

Intravenous versus epidural administration of hydromorphone. Effects on analgesia and recovery after radical retropubic prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether epidural administration of hydromorphone results in spinal analgesia or clinical benefit when compared with intravenous administration. Therefore, we undertook this study to determine whether epidural administration of hydromorphone resulted in decreased opioid requirement, improved analgesia, reduced side effects, more rapid return of gastrointestinal function, or shorter duration of hospital stay than intravenous administration. METHODS: Sixteen patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive either intravenous or epidural hydromorphone via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for postoperative analgesia. All patients underwent a standardized combined epidural and general anesthetic and all received ketorolac for 72 h postoperatively. To decrease variability, patients were cared for according to a standardized protocol and were deemed ready for discharge according to prospectively defined criteria. RESULTS: Patients in the intravenous PCA group required approximately twice as much opioid than the epidural PCA group (P < 0.008), but there were no differences between groups in pain scores or patient satisfaction. Epidural administration resulted in a greater incidence of pruritus (P = 0.02). Gastrointestinal function recovered quickly in all patients with little variation, and there were no differences between groups. All patients were deemed ready for discharge by the third postoperative day, and removal of surgical drains was the last discharge criterion reached in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that epidural administration of hydromorphone results in spinally mediated analgesia. However, epidural administration did not provide significant benefits in terms of postoperative analgesia, recovery of gastrointestinal function, or duration of hospitalization. Furthermore, we suggest that radical retropubic prostatectomy no longer be used as a model to assess the effects of analgesic technique on postoperative recovery, because control of discharge criteria revealed that hospital discharge was primarily dependent on removal of surgical drains.