A comparison of low dose hyperbaric levobupivacaine and hypobaric levobupivacaine in unilateral spinal anaesthesia.

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical effects and characteristics of hyperbaric and hypobaric levobupivacaine for unilateral spinal anaesthesia. Sixty patients were randomly allocated into two groups to receive either 7.5 mg (1.5 ml) hyperbaric levobupivacaine 0.5% or 7.5 mg (4 ml) hypobaric levobupivacaine 0.1875% for elective arthroscopic surgery of the knee under spinal anaesthesia. The level and duration of sensory block, intensity and duration of motor block were recorded. Unilateral sensory block was observed in 27 patients (90%) in the hyperbaric group and 24 patients (80%) in the hypobaric group in the lateral position. After 15 minutes, patients were turned to supine to redistribute the spinal block toward the non-operative side, but spinal anaesthesia was still unilateral in 18 patients (60%) in the hyperbaric group and 10 patients (33%) in the hypobaric group (P = 0.038). Time to readiness for home discharge and complete recovery of sensory block were similar in both groups. In the hyperbaric group, the motor block scores were higher on the operative side during first 10 minutes than they were in the hypobaric group (P < 0.002). Motor block regression was faster in the hyperbaric group (P = 0.01). Hyperbaric and hypobaric levobupivacaine both provided satisfactory unilateral spinal anaesthesia with good haemodynamic stability for arthroscopic surgery, but with more frequent unilateral spinal anaesthesia in the hyperbaric group.

Acupressure for postoperative nausea and vomiting in gynaecological patients receiving patient-controlled analgesia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of acupressure in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing gynaecological operations and receiving a patient-controlled analgesia device. METHODS: Patients aged between 40 and 65 yr were included. Exclusion criteria were obesity, diabetes mellitus, and history of motion sickness, postoperative nausea and vomiting, or smoking. Patients were randomized into one of two groups, acupressure and control. In the acupressure group, acupressure bands were placed on both wrists with the plastic bead positioned at the P6 point. In controls, beads were placed at a non-acupoint site. All patients received a standard general anaesthetic. Postoperatively, patients were connected to a patient-controlled analgesia device with morphine (loading dose 5 mg, background infusion 1 mg h-1, bolus dose 1 mg and lock-out time 10 min). Pain and sedation scores, respiratory rate, heart rate, arterial pressure and oxygen saturation were recorded for 24 h. Metoclopramide 10 mg was administered intravenously as a rescue antiemetic. RESULTS: Fifty patients received acupressure and 50 were controls. In the acupressure group, 33% of patients had nausea compared with 63% controls. The cumulative incidence of vomiting at 24 h was 25% with acupressure and 61% in controls. The incidence of nausea, vomiting and antiemetic use was significantly lower with acupressure. CONCLUSIONS: Acupressure at the P6 meridian point is an effective alternative for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving patient-controlled analgesia with morphine after gynaecological surgery.

Preoperative emotional states in patients with breast cancer and postoperative pain.

BACKGROUND: The present study examined the relationship between psychological variables, including anxiety, depression, and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) use in patients who underwent radical mastectomy. METHODS: Ninety-nine ASA I-II women with breast cancer between 18 and 60 years scheduled for modified radical mastectomy completed the state scale of the state-trait anxiety inventory and the Beck depression inventory before the day of surgery. Standard general anesthesia, surgery, and IV-PCA therapy was conducted. Postoperative ratings of pain intensity, opioid consumption and satisfaction with PCA were recorded for the first 24 h on the ward. The degree of pain intensity was evaluated by a visual analog scale (VAS, 1-10). Satisfaction with pain control was reported using an five-point scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). RESULTS: The pain intensity, total analgesic consumption and dose/demand ratio were significantly related to preoperative anxiety and depression (P<0.05). Degree of dissatisfaction with PCA was significantly correlated with preoperative anxiety and depression (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients with higher anxiety and depression levels had higher postoperative pain and analgesic requirements in this study.

Postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia with opioid bupivacaine mixtures.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and safety of patient-controlled epidural analgesia of morphine or fentanyl in combination with bupivacaine for postoperative pain relief. METHODS: Forty ASA I-II patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery were studied. After insertion of a lumbar epidural catheter, patients were given a non-opioid general anaesthetic. After surgery patients complaining of pain, received a loading dose of 2 mg morphine (Group I) or 50 micrograms fentanyl (Group II). For continuing pain, 1 mg morphine in 4 ml bupivacaine 0.125% (0.25 mg.ml-1 morphine and 1 mg.ml-1 bupivacaine, Group I) or 20 micrograms fentanyl in 4 ml bupivacaine 0.125% (5 micrograms.ml-1 fentanyl and 1 mg.ml-1 bupivacaine Group II) were administered. Blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate and SpO2 were monitored. Assessments of pain (VAS), nausea-vomiting, motor block, pruritus and sedation were recorded for 24 hr. RESULTS: No difference in pain or sedation was observed between groups. The 24 hr postoperative opioid consumption was 15.50 +/- 7.53 mg morphine and 555.10 +/- 183.85 micrograms fentanyl. Total bupivacaine 0.125% consumption was 58.00 +/- 30.14 ml in Group I and 101.05 +/- 36.77 ml in Group II. One patient in Group II complained of motor weakness in one leg. The incidence of nausea (Group I 45%, Group II 10% P < 0.05) and pruritus (Group I 30%, Group II 5% P < 0.05) was less in patients receiving fentanyl. CONCLUSION: Both methods were effective in the prevention of pain but, because of fewer side effects, fentanyl may be preferable to morphine.