Efficacy of ShotBlocker device versus vapocoolant spray for spinal needle pain relief during spinal anaesthesia in elective caesarean section - A randomised controlled trial.

Background and Aims: Apprehension of pain due to a spinal needle is often a cause of anxiety and refusal. ShotBlocker provides non-painful physical stimulation, inhibiting pain perception. The vapocoolant spray contains ethyl chloride vapours, rapidly raising the skin temperature and hampering the transmission of noxious stimuli. The present study compared the effectiveness of the ShotBlocker device and the vapocoolant spray in reducing spinal needle-associated pain in primigravida women undergoing elective lower-segment caesarean section (LSCS). Methods: We enroled 144 primigravida women undergoing elective LSCS and were randomised to Group SB (the ShotBlocker device was firmly pressed over the skin, and the spinal needle was inserted through its slit), Group V (the vapocoolant spray was applied at the puncture site before spinal needle insertion), and Group C (received local infiltration before spinal anaesthesia (SA)). The groups were compared for needle-associated pain and patient satisfaction using a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) and a 3-point Likert scale. Results: The mean (standard deviation) [95% confidence interval (CI)] VAS scores of Group SB 3.85 (0.74) [3.64, 4.07] and Group V 3.04 (0.74) [2.83, 3.26] were significantly lower than that of Group C 5.19 (0.92) [3.28, 3.62]). On the Likert scale, the maximum number of patients in the vapocoolant group (64.6%) responded satisfactorily, while in the control group, the majority (62.5%) of participants responded dissatisfied (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Both the ShotBlocker and vapocoolant spray reduce needle puncture-associated pain before SA in primigravida patients undergoing elective LSCS. However, the vapocoolant spray is more beneficial in reducing spinal needle-associated pain than the ShotBlocker device.

Post-spinal Anesthesia Low Back Pain in Obese Female Patients: Comparison of the Median Versus Paramedian Approach.

BACKGROUND: A side effect of spinal anesthesia is post-dural puncture backache (PDPB), which is characterized by ongoing discomfort at the location of the spinal puncture without any radicular pain. This study aims to compare the incidence and severity of post-dural puncture back pain following spinal anesthesia by median versus paramedian technique in obese female patients. METHODS:  A prospective randomized comparative study on 120 female patients, aged 20-50 years with a BMI of 30-40 kg/m2 and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status II, scheduled for elective surgery under spinal anesthesia, was included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups, with 60 patients in each group. Group P uses the paramedian approach for spinal anesthesia, and group M uses the midline approach for spinal anesthesia. RESULTS: Low back pain incidence was lower in group P than in group M at seven days, but at one month and after, its incidence remained the same in both groups. No difference in the severity of pain was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of back pain in the first seven days of surgery was significantly more frequent with the median approach. The pain severity decreased as the time passed from day seven to three months of follow-up. There is no difference in the severity of pain with either approach at different intervals.

A Comparison Between Dexamethasone and Clonidine as Adjuvants to Levobupivacaine in the Supraclavicular Approach to the Brachial Plexus Block: A Double-Blind Study.

OBJECTIVE:  The objective of this clinical study is to compare the efficacy of adding dexamethasone or clonidine as an adjuvant drug to levobupivacaine in supraclavicular brachial plexus block (BPB) with regard to the onset and duration of sensory and motor blocks along with duration of postoperative analgesia. BACKGROUND:  Brachial plexus block (BPB), with or without general anesthesia, has been used widely for multiple upper limb surgical procedures, by virtue of its efficacy in terms of cost-effectiveness, efficiency, safety margins, and good postoperative analgesia. Various adjuvant drugs have been described to potentiate the analgesic effect of local anesthetic agents such as epinephrine, clonidine, dexamethasone, dexmedetomidine, or midazolam. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind study in which a total of 90 American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status I and II patients of either sex, aged between 18 and 60 years, were scheduled for elective upper limb surgical procedures under supraclavicular BPB. They were divided into three equivalent randomized groups with 30 patients in each group. The patients were administered either normal saline 2 mL (in group L) or clonidine 0.5 mcg/kg body weight (in group LC) or dexamethasone 8 mg (in group LD) with 30 mL of 0.5% levobupivacaine. The time of onset and duration of sensory and motor blockades along with the time duration of analgesia were compared. RESULTS: All groups were equivalent as per demographic data. The time duration for onset of sensory and motor blocks was comparable among all three included groups (12.77±2.60 minutes and 20.80±3.25 minutes, 15.93±2.08 minutes and 22.43±3.07 minutes, and 12.57±2.62 minutes and 22.47±3.10 minutes for group L, LC, and LD, respectively). The time duration of analgesia and motor blockade was significantly prolonged in the dexamethasone group (1195.33±50.01 minutes and 1173.17±43.57 minutes) and moderately prolonged in the clonidine group (696.33±36.74 minutes and 674.67±34.33 minutes) when compared to levobupivacaine group (416.33±35.98 minutes and 397.00±35.12 minutes), and the difference was statistically significant (p<0.001). CONCLUSION:  Dexamethasone appears to be a superior adjuvant drug to clonidine for brachial plexus block via supraclavicular approach as it provides prolonged duration of motor block with lesser requirement of postoperative analgesia and lack of adverse effects.