Comparison of the effects of sugammadex and neostigmine on postoperative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study is to compare the effects of sugammadex and neostigmine, used for neuromuscular blockage antagonism, on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: Our study was completed with 98 ASA I-II risk patients undergoing endotracheal intubation under general anesthesia. At the end of the surgery patients were randomly divided into two groups given 2mgkg-1 sugammadex (Group S) or 50µgkg-1 neostigmine plus 0.2mgkg-1 atropine (Group N). Monitoring and recording times were set as 1 hour postoperative and from 1-6, 6-12, and 12-24hours. The anti-emetic amounts administered were recorded. RESULTS: In the first hour postoperative 13 patients in Group N (27%) and 4 in Group S (8%) were observed to have nausea and/or vomiting and the difference was statistically significant (p=0.0016). During the 24 hours of monitoring there was no significant difference in the incidence and severity of PONV (p>0.05), however the number of patients given ondansetron for PONV treatment in Group N was statistically significantly higher than the number in Group S (16 in Group N, 6 in Group S, p<0.011). CONCLUSIONS: At the end of our study comparing neostigmine with sugammadex for neuromuscular blockage antagonism, we found use of sugammadex had lower incidence of PONV in the postoperative 1st hour and less anti-emetic use in 24 hours of monitoring.

The use of rocuronium in giant Amazon turtle Podocnemis expansa (Schweigger, 1812) (Testudines, Podocnemididae).

PURPOSE: To determine whether rocuronium would provide safe, short-term immobilization in Podocnemis expansa. METHODS: Twenty P. expansa, weighing on average 1.59 +/- 0.28 kg, were subjected to two protocols: G1 0.25 mg/kg IM of rocuronium and 0.07 mg/kg IM of neostigmine, while G2 received 0.50 mg/kg IM of rocuronium and 0.07 mg/kg IM of neostigmine. The drugs were applied, respectively, in the left and right thoracic members. Assessments were made of the anesthetic parameters of respiratory frequency, heartbeat, righting reflex, cloacal relaxation, palpebral and pupilar reflexes, easy handling, muscle relaxation, locomotion, response to pain stimuli in the right thoracic members, pelvic members and tail, ambient humidity and temperature. RESULTS: They were not found statistical differences between the dosages for the majority of the assessments. G1 was as efficient as G2. A consistent neuromuscular blockade effect was recorded 12 +/- 4.21 minutes in G1 and G2. All the animals were recovered in 150 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of rocuronium at dose of 0.25 to 0.5 mg/kg IM is a safe and effective adjunct to clinical proceedings or pre-anesthetics in P. expansa. Because rocuronium does not provide any analgesic or sedative effects, the duration of neuromuscular blockade without anesthesia should be minimized to avoid undue stress.

The use of rocuronium in giant Amazon turtle Podocnemis expansa (Schweigger, 1812) (Testudines, Podocnemididae) / Uso do rocurônio em tartaruga da Amazônia Podocnemis expansa (Schweigger, 1812) (Testudines, Podocnemididae)

PURPOSE: To determine whether rocuronium would provide safe, short-term immobilization in Podocnemis expansa. METHODS: Twenty P. expansa, weighing on average 1.59 ± 0.28 kg, were subjected to two protocols: G1 0.25 mg/kg IM of rocuronium and 0.07 mg/kg IM of neostigmine, while G2 received 0.50 mg/kg IM of rocuronium and 0.07 mg/kg IM of neostigmine. The drugs were applied, respectively, in the left and right thoracic members. Assessments were made of the anesthetic parameters of respiratory frequency, heartbeat, righting reflex, cloacal relaxation, palpebral and pupilar reflexes, easy handling, muscle relaxation, locomotion, response to pain stimuli in the right thoracic members, pelvic members and tail, ambient humidity and temperature. RESULTS: They were not found statistical differences between the dosages for the majority of the assessments. G1 was as efficient as G2. A consistent neuromuscular blockade effect was recorded 12 ± 4.21 minutes in G1 and G2. All the animals were recovered in 150 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of rocuronium at dose of 0.25 to 0.5 mg/kg IM is a safe and effective adjunct to clinical proceedings or pre-anesthetics in P. expansa. Because rocuronium does not provide any analgesic or sedative effects, the duration of neuromuscular blockade without anesthesia should be minimized to avoid undue stress.

OBJETIVO: Determinar se o rocurônio promove imobilização segura e de curta duração em Podocnemis expansa. MÉTODOS: Vinte P. expansa com média de peso 1,59 ± 0,28 kg, foram submetidas a dois protocolos: G1 recebeu rocurônio 0,25 mg/kg IM e neostigmina 0,07 mg/kg IM enquanto G2 rocurônio 0,50 mg/kg IM e neostigmina 0,07 mg/kg IM, aplicados no membro torácico esquerdo e direito, respectivamente. Observaram-se os parâmetros anestésicos: freqüência respiratória e cardíaca, reflexo de endireitamento, relaxamento do esfíncter da cloaca, reflexo palpebral e pupilar, facilidade de manipulação, relaxamento muscular, locomoção, resposta aos estímulos dolorosos no membro torácico direito, nos membros pelvinos e na cauda, temperatura e umidade ambiental. RESULTADOS: Não foram encontradas diferenças estatísticas entre as doses para a maioria dos parâmetros e o G1 foi tão eficiente quanto o G2. Um bloqueio neuromuscular consistente foi observado aos 12 ± 4,21 minutos tanto no G1 como no G2. A recuperação de todos os animais ocorreu em até 150 minutos. CONCLUSÕES: Administração de rocurônio nas doses 0,25 e 0,50 mg/kg IM é segura e efetiva para os procedimentos clínicos ou pré-anestésicos em P. expansa. Como o rocurônio não produz efeitos sedativos ou analgésicos, a duração do bloqueio neuromuscular sem anestesia deverá ser minimizado para evitar estresse.

Efeitos da metadona ou do neostigmine, associados à lidocaína administrados pela via epidural em cães / Effects of methadone or neostigmine in combination with lidocaine for epidural anesthesia in dogs

Seis cães adultos, de raças e sexos variados, com peso de 13,3±3,4kg (média±DP), foram utilizados no estudo. Os animais foram tranqüilizados com acepromazina (0,1mg/kg, IV) e, após 30 minutos, foram aleatoriamente submetidos à anestesia epidural com um dos seguintes tratamentos: lidocaína 2 por cento 0,25ml/kg (controle); neostigmine 0,01mg/kg+lidocaína (NEO); metadona 0,3mg/kg+lidocaína (MET). Todos os animais foram submetidos aos três tratamentos com intervalo mínimo de uma semana. Foram mensuradas as freqüências cardíaca (FC) e respiratória (FR), a pressão arterial sistólica (PAS), o tempo para a perda do reflexo interdigital, a duração e a altura do bloqueio sensitivo, durante um período de 90 minutos. Não houve diferença significativa entre os tratamentos nos valores de FC, PAS e FR, bem como na duração do bloqueio sensitivo e no tempo para a perda do reflexo interdigital. No grupo MET, houve diminuição de FC dos 30 aos 90 minutos em relação ao valor basal. Bloqueio sensitivo mais cranial também foi observado em MET. A associação de neostigmine ou metadona não prolongou o período hábil de anestesia epidural produzido pela lidocaína em cães. A metadona, mas não o neostigmine, parece estender mais cranialmente o bloqueio epidural pela lidocaína.

Six mature mongrel dogs of both genders, weighing 13.3±3.4kg (mean±SD) were used in the present research. Thirty minutes after premedication with intravenous acepromazine (0.1mg/kg, IV), dogs were randomly assigned to receive epidural administration of one of following three treatments: 2 percent lidocaine 0.25ml/kg (control), or neostigmine 0.01mg/kg plus lidocaine (NEO), or methadone 0.3mg/kg plus lidocaine (MET). All dogs received all treatments in a cross-over design with at least one-week interval. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), systolic arterial pressure (SAP), time to loss of pedal withdrawal reflex, duration of epidural anesthesia, and cranial spread of epidural anesthesia were evaluated for 90 minutes. No differences among treatments in HR, RR, SAP, duration of anesthesia, and time to loss of pedal withdrawal reflex were found. In MET, HR decreased from 30 to 90 minutes compared to baseline and there was a higher cranial spread of epidural anesthesia than in controls and NEO animals. Neostigmine or methadone did not prolong epidural anesthesia with lidocaine in dogs. Methadone, but not neostigmine, appeared to result in more cranial spread of epidural anesthesia with lidocaine.

Efeitos da metadona ou do neostigmine, associados à lidocaína administrados pela via epidural em cães / Effects of methadone or neostigmine in combination with lidocaine for epidural anesthesia in dogs

Seis cães adultos, de raças e sexos variados, com peso de 13,3±3,4kg (média±DP), foram utilizados no estudo. Os animais foram tranqüilizados com acepromazina (0,1mg/kg, IV) e, após 30 minutos, foram aleatoriamente submetidos à anestesia epidural com um dos seguintes tratamentos: lidocaína 2 por cento 0,25ml/kg (controle); neostigmine 0,01mg/kg+lidocaína (NEO); metadona 0,3mg/kg+lidocaína (MET). Todos os animais foram submetidos aos três tratamentos com intervalo mínimo de uma semana. Foram mensuradas as freqüências cardíaca (FC) e respiratória (FR), a pressão arterial sistólica (PAS), o tempo para a perda do reflexo interdigital, a duração e a altura do bloqueio sensitivo, durante um período de 90 minutos. Não houve diferença significativa entre os tratamentos nos valores de FC, PAS e FR, bem como na duração do bloqueio sensitivo e no tempo para a perda do reflexo interdigital. No grupo MET, houve diminuição de FC dos 30 aos 90 minutos em relação ao valor basal. Bloqueio sensitivo mais cranial também foi observado em MET. A associação de neostigmine ou metadona não prolongou o período hábil de anestesia epidural produzido pela lidocaína em cães. A metadona, mas não o neostigmine, parece estender mais cranialmente o bloqueio epidural pela lidocaína.(AU)

Six mature mongrel dogs of both genders, weighing 13.3±3.4kg (mean±SD) were used in the present research. Thirty minutes after premedication with intravenous acepromazine (0.1mg/kg, IV), dogs were randomly assigned to receive epidural administration of one of following three treatments: 2 percent lidocaine 0.25ml/kg (control), or neostigmine 0.01mg/kg plus lidocaine (NEO), or methadone 0.3mg/kg plus lidocaine (MET). All dogs received all treatments in a cross-over design with at least one-week interval. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), systolic arterial pressure (SAP), time to loss of pedal withdrawal reflex, duration of epidural anesthesia, and cranial spread of epidural anesthesia were evaluated for 90 minutes. No differences among treatments in HR, RR, SAP, duration of anesthesia, and time to loss of pedal withdrawal reflex were found. In MET, HR decreased from 30 to 90 minutes compared to baseline and there was a higher cranial spread of epidural anesthesia than in controls and NEO animals. Neostigmine or methadone did not prolong epidural anesthesia with lidocaine in dogs. Methadone, but not neostigmine, appeared to result in more cranial spread of epidural anesthesia with lidocaine.(AU)

Avaliação do bloqueio neuromuscular residual e da recurarização tardia na sala de recuperação pós-anestésica / Evaluation of residual neuromuscular block and late recurarization in the post-anesthetic care unit

JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: O bloqueio neuromuscular residual altera a patência das vias aéreas aumentando o risco de graves complicações no pós-operatório. Nos pacientes que recebem o anticolinesterásico, a transmissão neuromuscular é incrementada pelo acúmulo de acetilcolina na placa motora, mas que, findo o efeito da neostigmina, teoricamente é possível uma "recurarização", visto que o agente antagonista não desloca o bloqueador neuromuscular do seu local de ação. Foi objetivo deste trabalho quantificar o grau de paralisia residual em Sala de Recuperação Pós-Anestésica (SRPA) e averiguar se os pacientes que receberam neostigmina apresentam fenômeno de "recurarização" tardia. MÉTODO: Foram estudados na SRPA 119 pacientes adultos que receberam bloqueadores neuromusculares para diferentes tipos de procedimentos. Ao chegarem na SRPA, a transmissão neuromuscular foi quantificada através de um monitor por método acelerográfico. Os eletrodos estimuladores foram instalados no trajeto do nervo ulnar no punho, e empregou-se a seqüência de 4 estímulos, com correntes de 30 mA, na periodicidade de 15 até 120 minutos. Nesta pesquisa considerou-se como resíduo de bloqueio neuromuscular uma relação T4/T1 abaixo de 0,9. No tempo de permanência da SRPA foram igualmente registrados os sintomas clínicos sugestivos de bloqueio neuromuscular residual e aferidos os sinais vitais. Para análise estatística foram empregadas medidas descritivas tais como média e freqüência absoluta. RESULTADOS: Os pacientes que receberam pancurônio apresentaram maior incidência de resíduo de bloqueio neuromuscular, principalmente os idosos. Nos pacientes que receberam neostigmina houve expressivo percentual de bloqueio neuromuscular residual. Em nenhum grupo observou-se o fenômeno de "recurarização" tardia. CONCLUSÕES: Constatou-se expressivo número de pacientes com resíduo de bloqueio neuromuscular, quando utilizado o pancurônio. A fase de recuperação, quando foi usada a neostigmina não se seguiu...

Epidural morphine and neostigmine for postoperative analgesia after orthopedic surgery.

UNLABELLED: In this study, we examined the side effects and analgesia of the combination of epidural neostigmine and morphine in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. Sixty patients undergoing knee surgery were divided into four groups. The intrathecal anesthetic was 15 mg of bupivacaine. The epidural test drug was diluted in saline to a final volume of 10 mL. The control group received saline as the epidural test drug. The morphine group received 0.6 mg of epidural morphine. The neostigmine group (NG) received 60 micro g of epidural neostigmine. The morphine/neostigmine group received 0.6 mg of epidural morphine combined with 60 micro g of epidural neostigmine. The groups were demographically the same and did not differ in intraoperative characteristics. The visual analog scale score at first rescue analgesic and the incidence of adverse effects were similar among groups (P > 0.05). One patient from the NG complained of intraoperative nausea, closely related to spinal hypotension. Postoperatively, two patients from the NG had vomited once. The time (min) to first rescue analgesic was longer in the morphine/neostigmine group ( approximately 11 h) compared with the other groups (P < 0.05). The analgesic consumption (number of analgesic administrations in 24 h) was larger in the control group compared with the other groups (P < 0.05). IMPLICATIONS: The combination of epidural morphine and epidural neostigmine resulted in postoperative analgesia (11 h) devoid of side effects, being an alternative analgesic technique in the population studied.

Analgesic and adverse effects of a low dose of intrathecally administered hyperbaric neostigmine alone or combined with morphine in patients submitted to spinal anaesthesia: pilot studies.

We report the analgesic and adverse effects of intrathecally administered hyperbaric neostigmine, alone or combined with morphine, in two patients suffering from severe lower limb ischaemic pain (group 1), five patients undergoing Caesarean section (group 2) and 19 patients scheduled for orthopaedic surgery (group 3) under spinal anaesthesia. These patients were enrolled in three pilot studies undertaken before the initiation of the planned controlled studies. Hyperbaric neostigmine (50 micrograms in glucose 8%) produced analgesia lasting more than 6 h in patients of group 1, but the effect was accompanied by episodes of vomiting. A lower dose of hyperbaric neostigmine (25 micrograms), alone (two patients) or combined with morphine (50 micrograms) (one patient) produced no discernible analgesic effect but was followed by severe nausea and vomiting within 15 min of intrathecal injection in patients of group 2. Two patients who received hyperbaric morphine (100 micrograms) had analgesia for more than 24 h and exhibited mild pruritus. In patients of group 3, hyperbaric neostigmine alone (25 micrograms) produced analgesia of shorter duration than neostigmine (25 micrograms) plus morphine (50 micrograms) or morphine (100 micrograms). Neostigmine alone or combined with morphine was associated with adverse events, mainly nausea and vomiting that lasted up to 9-12 in some patients. Other adverse events observed included anxiety, somnolence and involuntary defaecation. Most patients who received the combination of neostigmine and morphine exhibited more severe nausea, vomiting and somnolence. The low clinical efficacy of intrathecally administered neostigmine alone or in combination with morphine impairs the design of a double-blind protocol and might restrict the clinical usefulness of the drug combination.

Analgesia postoperatoria con y sin neostigmina espinal / Postoperative analgesia with and without the addition of spinal neostigmine

Se realizó un estudio anestésico prospectivo, longitudinal y compartivo en 30 pacientes del sexo femenino a quienes se les practicó artroplastía de la cadera o de la rodilla. Se clasificaron en grupos de 15 integrantes cada uno; el grupo A, de estudio se manejó con 15 mg de bupivacaína al 0.5 por ciento con 50 µg de metilsulfato de neostigmina por vía intratecal, mientras que al lote control se les administró por la misma vía, 15 mg de bupivacaína al 0.5 por ciento con 1 ml de glucosa al 5 por ciento. Se observó analgesia más significativa y de mayor duración en el grupo tratado con neostigmina, sin embargo, presentaron mayor frecuencia de náusea, vómito, bradicardia e hipotensión arterial

Postoperative analgesia and antiemetic efficacy after subarachnoid neostigmine in orthopedic surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The efficacy of operatively administered spinal neostigmine to provide analgesia and that of different antiemetics to prevent neostigmine-related nausea and vomiting were evaluated in patients undergoing tibial or ankle reconstruction. METHODS: One hundred patients were randomized to five groups (n = 20). The intravenous antiemetic test drug (except propofol) was given as premedication in the holding room, after intravenous midazolam, 0.05 mg/kg. The subarachnoid drugs administered were 20 mg bupivacaine (0.5%) in conjunction with 100 micrograms neostigmine, except for the saline group (S group), which received bupivacaine and saline. The S group, the neostigmine group (N group), and the propofol group (P group) received saline as the intravenous test drug. The droperidol group (D group) received intravenous droperidol 0.5 mg, and the metoclopramide group (M group) received intravenous metoclopramide 10 mg. The P group had a continuous intravenous propofol infusion (2-4 mg/kg/hr), started 10 minutes after the spinal injection. Nausea, emetic episodes, and the need for analgesic (disclofenac) or antiemetic medication were recorded for the first 24 hours following surgery and scored by a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: Subarachnoid neostigmine 100 micrograms did not affect subarachnoid bupivacaine analgesia as measured by time to first rescue analgesic in most patients, but it decreased the overall 24-hour visual analog scale (VAS) scores and the need for postoperative analgesics in 24 hours (P < .001). The incidence of intraoperative nausea and vomiting was higher in the N, D, and M groups than in the S group (P < .001). Following surgery, the 3-hour VAS assessment for emesis was higher for the N, P, and M groups than for the S group (P < .05). The overall 24-hour assessment was similar among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Subarachnoid neostigmine reduced postoperative pain scores and analgesic requirements. Whether it prolonged the duration of action of diclofenac or enhanced the mechanisms involved in spinal analgesia cannot be determined from these data. Although propofol and droperidol appeared to be more effective during and after surgery, respectively, all neostigmine groups were associated with a high consumption of antiemetics.

Postoperative analgesic effect of intrathecal neostigmine and its influence on spinal anaesthesia.

A clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the postoperative analgesic efficacy and the safety of intrathecal neostigmine in patients undergoing anterior and posterior vaginoplasty under spinal anaesthesia. Thirty-six patients were randomly divided into three groups to receive: normal saline (1 ml), morphine (100 micrograms in 1 ml of saline) or neostigmine (100 micrograms in 1 ml of saline) intrathecally just before a spinal injection of hyperbaric bupivacaine (0.5%, 4 ml). The mean [SD] time to the first analgesic (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug) administration was significantly prolonged by intrathecal neostigmine (10.7 [4.3] h) and morphine (15.3 [3.0] h) compared with saline (4.5 [1.0] h). The three groups also differed in the number of patients requiring subcutaneous morphine to complement the analgesia provided by the intramuscular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the mean [SD] times for their administration: eight patients in the saline group (8.0 [3.8] h), one patient in the morphine group (18 h) and two patients in the neostigmine group (8 and 12.9 h). The morphine and neostigmine groups showed similar analgesic effectiveness. The characteristics of spinal anaesthesia were not modified by intrathecal morphine or neostigmine. Severe nausea and vomiting, sweating and distress during surgery were the most obvious adverse effects of intrathecal neostigmine. On the other hand, less hypotension was observed in the neostigmine group. The usefulness of intrathecal neostigmine as the sole postoperative analgesic may be restricted by the severity of its adverse effects.

Postoperative analgesia and antiemetic efficacy after intrathecal neostigmine in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy during spinal anesthesia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Postoperative analgesia and antiemetic efficacy after intrathecal neostigmine were investigated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 100 patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy. METHODS: The patients were assigned to one of five groups (n = 20), and received intravenous prior to the spinal block the antiemetic test drug (except propofol) and 0.05 mg/kg midazolam. The control group (group C), the neostigmine group (group N), and the propofol group (group P) received saline as the test drug. The droperidol group (group D) received 0.5 mg intravenous droperidol, and the metoclopramide group (group M) 10 mg intravenous metoclopramide. Group P was single-blinded and had an intravenous continuous propofol infusion (2-4 mg/kg/h) turned on 10 minutes after the spinal injection. The intrathecal drugs administered were 20 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine (0.5%) associated with either 100 microg neostigmine or saline (for group C). Nausea, emetic episodes, and the need for rescue medication were recorded for the first 24 hours postoperative and scored by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). RESULTS: Time-to-first-rescue medication and rescue medications in 24 hours were similar among the groups (P = .2917 and P = .8780, respectively). Intrathecal 100 microg neostigmine was associated with a high incidence of nausea and vomiting perioperative, leading to a high consumption of antiemetics (P < .002). None of the antiemetic test drugs were effective in preventing nausea and vomiting after 100 microg neostigmine. CONCLUSIONS: Intrathecal neostigmine (100 microg) was ineffective for postoperative analgesia after abdominal hysterectomy due to side effects of nausea and vomiting.

Intravenous ketamine or fentanyl prolongs postoperative analgesia after intrathecal neostigmine.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether intravenous (i.v.) ketamine would enhance analgesia from intrathecal (IT) neostigmine compared with combining i.v. fentanyl with IT neostigmine. Sixty patients undergoing vaginoplasty under spinal anesthesia were assigned to one of six groups (n = 10). Patients were premedicated with midazolam plus the i.v. test drug. The IT drugs were 20 mg bupivacaine plus saline or 50 micrograms neostigmine. The control group (CG) received saline i.v. and IT. The neostigmine control group (NCG) received saline i.v. and neostigmine IT. The ketamine group (KG) received ketamine 0.2 mg/kg i.v. and saline IT, and the ketamine neostigmine group (KNG), ketamine i.v. and neostigmine IT. The fentanyl group (FG) received fentanyl 1 microgram/kg i.v. and saline IT, and the fentanyl neostigmine group (FNG), fentanyl i.v. and neostigmine IT. The time to first rescue analgesic was longer for the FNG and KNG compared with the CG, with less rescue analgesic consumption (P < 0.02 and P < 0.01, respectively). Only the FNG had significantly intraoperative nausea/vomiting (P < 0.02). In conclusion, the combination of i.v. ketamine and IT neostigmine results in prolonged postoperative analgesia and less intraoperative nausea and vomiting than the combination of i.v. fentanyl and IT neostigmine.

Dose-response study of intrathecal morphine versus intrathecal neostigmine, their combination, or placebo for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing anterior and posterior vaginoplasty.

This study was designed to examine postoperative analgesia with intrathecal neostigmine in a randomized, blinded trial with morphine as the active control in patients undergoing anterior and posterior vaginoplasty. A secondary aim was to provide preliminary data on the interaction between these two drugs. The incidence of adverse effects was also assessed. Forty-eight patients were divided into eight groups (50 micrograms, 100 micrograms, and 200 micrograms morphine [M]; saline; 50 micrograms, 100 micrograms, and 200 micrograms neostigmine [N]; and 50 micrograms morphine + 50 micrograms neostigmine). Anesthesia was provided with a balanced technique. All patients stayed 24 h in the recovery room where adequacy of postoperative analgesia and side effects were assessed. Increasing doses of intrathecal morphine (50 micrograms, 100 micrograms, and 200 micrograms) and intrathecal neostigmine (50 micrograms, 100 micrograms, and 200 micrograms) showed a dose-dependent pattern of analgesia (P < 0.001). The M50 + N50 combination resulted in a better analgesic effect with fewer side effects than M50, N50, and control groups. These preliminary data suggest that spinal neostigmine produces analgesia for vaginoplasty surgery similar in duration to spinal morphine and that the combination of morphine and neostigmine may allow a reduction in the dose of each component for postoperative analgesia.