Ropivacaine for unilateral spinal anesthesia; hyperbaric or hypobaric?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the unilaterality of subarachnoid block achieved with hyperbaric and hypobaric ropivacaine. METHODS: The prospective, randomized trial was conducted in an orthopedics surgical suite. In all, 60 ASA I-III patients scheduled for elective total knee arthroplasty were included in the study. Group Hypo (n=30) received 11.25mg of ropivacaine (7.5mg.mL(-1)) + 2mL of distilled water (density at room temperature was 0.997) and group Hyper (n=30) received 11.25mg of ropivacaine (7.5mg.mL(-1)) + 2mL (5mg.mL(-1)) of dextrose (density at room temperature was 1,015). Patients in the hyperbaric group were positioned with the operated side down and in the 15° Fowler position, versus those in the hypobaric group with the operated side facing up and in the 15° Trendelenburg position. Combined spinal epidural anesthesia was performed midline at the L(3-4) lumbar interspace. Hemodynamic and spinal block parameters, regression time, success of unilateral spinal anesthesia, patient comfort, surgical comfort, surgeon comfort, first analgesic requirement time, and adverse effects were assessed. RESULTS: Time to reach the T10 dermatome level on the operated side was shorter in group Hyper (612.00±163.29s) than in group Hypo (763.63±208.35s) (p<0.05). Time to 2-segment regression of the sensory block level on both the operated and non-operated sides was shorter in group Hypo than in group Hyper. CONCLUSION: Both hyperbaric and hypobaric ropivacaine (11.25mg) provided adequate and dependable anesthesia for total knee replacement surgery, with a high level of patient and surgeon comfort. Hypobaric local anesthetic solutions provide a high level of unilateral anesthesia, with rapid recovery of both sensory and motor block, and therefore may be preferable in outpatient settings.

Ropivacaína para raquianestesia unilateral: hiperbárica ou hipobárica? / Ropivacaine for unilateral spinal anesthesia; hyperbaric or hypobaric? / Ropivacaína para raquianestesia unilateral: ¿hiperbárica o hipobárica?

JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar a unilateralidade do bloqueio subaracnoide obtido com ropivacaína hiperbárica e hipobárica. MÉTODOS: Estudo prospectivo aleatorizado conduzido em centro cirúrgico ortopédico. No total, 60 pacientes (ASA I-III) programados para cirurgia eletiva de artroplastia total do joelho foram incluídos no estudo. O grupo hipo (n = 30) recebeu 11,25 mg de ropivacaína (7,5 mg.mL-1) + 2 mL de água destilada (a densidade em temperatura ambiente foi 0,997) e o grupo hiper (n = 30) recebeu 11,25 mg de ropivacaína + 2 mL (5 mg.mL-1) de dextrose (a densidade em temperatura ambiente foi 1,015). Os pacientes no grupo hiperbárica foram posicionados com o lado operado para baixo e na posição de Fowler a 15º e os pacientes do grupo hipobárica foram posicionados com o lado operado para cima e na posição de Trendelenburg a 15º. O bloqueio combinado de raquianestesia e anestesia peridural (ACRP) foi realizado na linha mediana do interespaço lombar em L3 e L4. Foram avaliados os parâmetros hemodinâmicos e de bloqueio da coluna vertebral, tempo de regressão, sucesso da raquianestesia unilateral, conforto do paciente, do cirurgião e da cirurgia, tempo até a primeira requisição analgésica e efeitos adversos. RESULTADOS: O tempo necessário para atingir o nível de dermátomo T10 no lado operado foi menor no grupo hiper (612,00 ± 163,29 segundos) comparado ao grupo hipo (763,63 ± 208,35 segundos) (p < 0,05). O tempo para a regressão de dois segmentos do nível de bloqueio sensorial nos lados operado e não operado foi menor no grupo hipo do que no grupo hiper. CONCLUSÃO: A ropivacaína tanto hiperbárica quanto hipobárica (11,25 mg) proporcionou anestesia adequada e confiável para artroplastia total do joelho (ATJ), com um alto nível de conforto para o paciente e cirurgião. As soluções anestésicas hipobáricas locais fornecem um alto nível de anestesia unilateral, com rápida recuperação dos bloqueios sensitivo e motor e, portanto, pode ser preferível em regime ambulatorial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the unilaterality of subarachnoid block achieved with hyperbaric and hypobaric ropivacaine. METHODS: The prospective, randomized trial was conducted in an orthopedics surgical suite. In all, 60 ASA I-III patients scheduled for elective total knee arthroplasty were included in the study. Group Hypo (n = 30) received 11.25 mg of ropivacaine (7.5 mg.mL-1) + 2 mL of distilled water (density at room temperature was 0.997) and group Hyper (n = 30) received 11.25 mg of ropivacaine (7.5 mg.mL-1) + 2 mL (5 mg.mL-1) of dextrose (density at room temperature was 1,015). Patients in the hyperbaric group were positioned with the operated side down and in the 15º Fowler position, versus those in the hypobaric group with the operated side facing up and in the 15º Trendelenburg position. Combined spinal epidural anesthesia was performed midline at the L3-4 lumbar interspace. Hemodynamic and spinal block parameters, regression time, success of unilateral spinal anesthesia, patient comfort, surgical comfort, surgeon comfort, first analgesic requirement time, and adverse effects were assessed. RESULTS: Time to reach the T10 dermatome level on the operated side was shorter in group Hyper (612.00 ± 163.29 s) than in group Hypo (763.63 ± 208.35 s) (p < 0.05). Time to 2-segment regression of the sensory block level on both the operated and non-operated sides was shorter in group Hypo than in group Hyper. CONCLUSION: Both hyperbaric and hypobaric ropivacaine (11.25 mg) provided adequate and dependable anesthesia for total knee replacement surgery, with a high level of patient and surgeon comfort. Hypobaric local anesthetic solutions provide a high level of unilateral anesthesia, with rapid recovery of both sensory and motor block, and therefore may be preferable in outpatient settings.

JUSTIFICATIVA Y OBJETIVOS: El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar la unilateralidad del bloqueo subaracnoideo logrado con la ropivacaína hiperbárica y con la ropivacaína hipobárica. MÉTODOS: El estudio randomizado y prospectivo fue llevado a cabo en una sala quirúrgica ortopédica. En total, 60 pacientes ASA I-III seleccionados para artoplastia electiva total de rodilla fueron incluidos en el estudio. El grupo Hipo (n = 30) recibió 11,25 mg de ropivacaína (7.5 mg.mL-1) + 2 mL de agua destilada (la densidad en la temperatura ambiente era de 0,997) y el grupo Hiper (n = 30) recibió 11,25 mg de ropivacaína + 2 mL (5 mg.mL-1) de dextrosa (la densidad en la temperatura ambiente era de 1,015). Los pacientes del grupo hiperbárica fueron colocados con el lado operado hacia abajo y en la posición de Fowler a 15º, y los pacientes del grupo hipobárica fueron colocados con el lado operado hacia arriba en la posición de Trendelenburg a 15º. El bloqueo combinado de raquianestesia y de anestesia epidural (CRP) fue realizado en la línea media del interespacio lumbar en L3 y L4. Se evaluaron los parámetros hemodinámico y de bloqueo de la columna vertebral, el tiempo de regresión, el éxito de la raquianestesia unilateral, la comodidad del paciente, la tranquilidad en la cirugía y la comodidad del cirujano, así como el tiempo requerido para la primera analgesia y los efectos adversos. RESULTADOS: El tiempo necesario para alcanzar el nivel del dermatoma T10 en el lado operado fue más corto en el grupo Hiper (612,00 ± 163,29 segundos) que en el grupo Hipo (763,63 ± 208,35 segundos) (p < 0,05). El tiempo para la regresión de los dos segmentos del nivel de bloqueo sensorial tanto en el lado operado como en el no operado, fue más corto en el grupo Hipo que en el grupo Hiper. CONCLUSIONES: Tanto la ropivacaína hiperbárica como la hipobárica (11,25 mg) han demostrado una anestesia adecuada y confiable para la artoplastia total de rodilla (ATR), con un alto nivel de comodidad tanto para el paciente como para el cirujano. Las soluciones anestésicas hipobáricas locales suministran un alto nivel de anestesia unilateral con una rápida recuperación de los bloqueos sensorial y motor, y por tanto, puede ser preferible en un régimen ambulatorial.

Pre-emptive analgesic and haemodynamic efficacy of combined spinal-epidural neostigmine delivery.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of pre-emptive epidurally administered 4 or 8 mcg/kg neostigmine on analgesia, mean arterial pressure, heart rate and side effects in intra and postoperative period. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, double blinded, controlled clinical trial. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital, Turkey, from January to December 2008. METHODOLOGY: Forty-five patients scheduled for lower extremity surgery were included in the study following the approval of the ethics committee and the patients. The study group was split into three groups and received combined spinalepidural anaesthesia. Diluting with 10 ml normal saline, group N4 and group N8 were delivered 4 mcg/kg and 8 mcg/kg epidural neostigmine, respectively, whereas group SF received 10 ml epidural saline. Lidocaine (2%) at 1.2 mg/kg dose was preferred for spinal anaesthesia. Analgesic efficacy, time to first analgesic requirement, Visual Analog Scale, Fentanyl consumption in the postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia, and delivered/required number of boluses, were evaluated. Haemodynamic data and side effects were noted. RESULTS: Statistically, analgesic consumptions at 12 and 24 hours in the N8 group was lower than those in the SF group, the number of delivered boluses was lower in the N8 group compared with the SF and N4 groups, number of required boluses was lower in the N8 group than in the SF group. In terms of haemodynamics and side effects, no difference was found between the groups regarding the entire intraoperative and postoperative parameters. CONCLUSION: Epidural Neostigmine administration at 8 mcg/kg was found to be a viable additional agent against analgesia, with the postoperative period depending on the dosage.

Low-dose ropivacaine or levobupivacaine walking spinal anesthesia in ambulatory inguinal herniorrhaphy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to compare the equipotent doses of ropivacaine and levobupivacaine for walk-out criteria and the characteristics of spinal anesthesia in inguinal herniorrhaphy surgery. METHODS: Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia was performed. Adult patients were randomly allocated to receive 5 mg 0.5% ropivacaine plus 25 µg fentanyl (group RF, n = 25) or 3.75 mg 0.75% levobupivacaine plus 25 µg fentanyl (group LF, n = 25). Each solution was hypobaric, and the same volume, 3 ml, was administered. Sensory and motor block characteristics, hemodynamic changes, side effects, number of patients having ability to stand and walk at the end of the operation, time to first analgesic requirement, time to urination, time to getting out of bed (ambulation), and time to home discharge were determined. RESULTS: Sensory block onset time and time to reach the T6 dermatome were significantly shorter in group LF, whereas time to the two-segment regression and time to first analgesic requirement were significantly shorter in group RF. All patients in group LF were Bromage 0. Time to home discharge was shorter in group LF, but this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: We suggest that both local anesthetics can be used in walking spinal technique. Levobupivacaine may be an alternative local anesthetic for walking spinal anesthesia as it provides minimum motor block and a long duration of postoperative analgesia, even if its use is not associated with a shorter home discharge time.

Regional intravenous anesthesia in knee arthroscopy.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of the study was to investigate the regional intravenous anesthesia procedure in knee arthroscopy and to evaluate the effects of adding ketamine over the anesthesia block charactery and tourniquet pain. MATERIAL/METHOD: Forty American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) II patients who received knee arthroscopy were enrolled. After monitoring, a peripheral IV line was inserted.The venous blood in the lower extremity was evacuated with a bandage, and the proximal cuff of the double-cuff tourniquet was inflated. The patients were randomly split into two groups. While Group P received 80 ml 0.5% prilocaine, Group PK received 0.15 mg/kg ketamine (80 ml in total) via the dorsum of the foot. We recorded onset time of the sensory block, end time of the sensory block, presence of the motor block, the time when the patient verbally reported tourniquet pain and surgical pain, duration of tourniquet tolerance, fentanyl consumption during the operation, time to first analgesic requirement, methemoglobin values at 60 minutes, operative conditions, 24-hour analgesic consumption, discharge time, and hemodynamic parameters. RESULTS: The body mass index (BMI) of the patients who required general anesthesia was significantly higher than the BMI of other patients. The onset time of the sensory block was shorter for those in Group PK, but the time to first analgesic requirement was longer. CONCLUSION: Regional intravenous anesthesia using the doses and volumes commonly used in knee arthroscopy may be an inadequate block among patients with high BMI values. Moreover, the addition of ketamine to the local anesthetic solution may produce a partial solution by shortening the onset of sensory block and prolonging the time until the first analgesic is required.

A comparison of epidural anesthesia and lumbar plexus-sciatic nerve blocks for knee surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The efficacy of combined lumbar plexus-sciatic nerve blocks was compared to epidural anesthesia in patients undergoing total knee surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 80 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status I-III patients (age range 18 to 65) undergoing knee surgery. The patients were randomly divided into one of two groups. Epidural anesthesia was performed in the epidural anesthesia (EA) group (n=40), and the lumbar plexus and sciatic nerves were blockedin the lumbar plexus-sciatic nerve blocks (LPSB) group (n=40). For each patient, onset of sensory and motor block, degree of motor block, sign of sensory block in the contralateral lower limb for the lumbar plexus-sciatic nerve blocks group, success in providing adequate anesthesia, hemodynamic changes, time of first analgesic request, and patient and surgeon satisfaction with the anesthetic technique were recorded. RESULTS: One patient in the epidural anesthesia group and three patients in the lumbar plexus-sciatic nerve blocks group required general anesthesia due to failed block. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the success of providing adequate anesthesia. Eight patients in the lumbar plexus-sciatic nerve blocks group developed contralateral spread. The onset of sensory-motor block and the time of the first analgesic request were significantly later in the lumbar plexus-sciatic nerve blocks group than in the epidural anesthesia group. Although there were no significant differences regarding patient satisfaction with the anesthetic technique between the two groups, surgeon satisfaction was significantly higher in the lumbar plexus-sciatic nerve blocks group than in the epidural anesthesia group. CONCLUSION: The lumbar plexus -sciatic nerve blocks provide effective unilateral anesthesia and may offer a beneficial alternative to epidural anesthesia in patients undergoing total knee surgery.

A comparison of epidural anesthesia and lumbar plexus-sciatic nerve blocks for knee surgery

Objectives: The efficacy of combined lumbar plexus-sciatic nerve blocks was compared to epidural anesthesia in patients undergoing total knee surgery. Patients and methods: The study included 80 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status I-III patients (age range 18 to 65) undergoing knee surgery. The patients were randomly divided into one of two groups. Epidural anesthesia was performed in the epidural anesthesia (EA) group (n=40), and the lumbar plexus and sciatic nerves were blockedin the lumbar plexus-sciatic nerve blocks (LPSB) group (n=40). For each patient, onset of sensory and motor block, degree of motor block, sign of sensory block in the contralateral lower limb for the lumbar plexus-sciatic nerve blocks group, success in providing adequate anesthesia, hemodynamic changes, time of first analgesic request, and patient and surgeon satisfaction with the anesthetic technique were recorded. Results: One patient in the epidural anesthesia group and three patients in the lumbar plexus-sciatic nerve blocks group required general anesthesia due to failed block. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the success of providing adequate anesthesia. Eight patients in the lumbar plexus-sciatic nerve blocks group developed contralateral spread. The onset of sensory-motor block and the time of the first analgesic request were significantly later in the lumbar plexus-sciatic nerve blocks group than in the epidural anesthesia group. Although there were no significant differences regarding patient satisfaction with the anesthetic technique between the two groups, surgeon satisfaction was significantly higher in the lumbar plexus-sciatic nerve blocks group than in the epidural anesthesia group. Conclusion: The lumbar plexus -sciatic nerve blocks provide effective unilateral anesthesia and may offer a beneficial alternative to epidural anesthesia in patients undergoing total knee surgery.

Selective spinal anesthesia for inguinal herniorrhaphy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the characteristic profiles of 2 hypobaric spinal anesthetic solutions for selective spinal anesthesia in inguinal herniorrhaphy. METHODS: The study took place in the general surgery room of Anesthesia Department, Ankara Numune Research and Training Hospital between May and July 2005 as a prospective, randomized and double-blind trial. Sixty-one ASA I-III patients scheduled for inguinal herniorrhaphy were randomly divided into 2 groups. Group R received combined spinal epidural anesthesia with ropivacaine 7.5 mg and group B received bupivacaine 5 mg; in both groups 25 ug of fentanyl was added. Solutions were diluted with 1.5 ml of sterile water. A Portex 18/27 or 16/27 needle was inserted at L1-2 or L2-3 with patients sitting upright; surgery began after the sensory block reached the T6 dermatome. Sensory and motor block characteristics, hemodynamic data, side effects, recovery time, the timing of the onset of pain, and the walkout were assessed. RESULTS: Motor block duration was shorter in Group R (56.1 +/- 36.1 minutes versus 72.5 +/- 23.3 minutes) (p=0.013). Complete motor block duration was shorter in Group R. There was no difference between the 2 groups. Intra-group analysis showed that hemodynamic values after anesthesia induction were lower than initial values. CONCLUSION: Ropivacaine plus fentanyl provided similar sensory anesthesia, but with a shorter duration of motor block than bupivacaine plus fentanyl when used for selective spinal anesthesia in herniorrhaphy surgery. Furthermore, we suggest that hemodynamic should be carefully monitored during surgery.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under spinal anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) such as less pain and short hospital stay make it the treatment of choice for cholelithiasis. There are limited data about LC under spinal anesthesia. This study was designed to evaluate LC under spinal anesthesia. METHODS: Twenty-nine patients underwent surgery for LC under spinal anesthesia at the 4th Department of Surgery of the Ankara Numune Education and Research Hospital between April 2005 and January 2006. All patients were informed about spinal anesthesia in detail. The patients also were informed about the risk of conversion to general anesthesia, and all patients provided informed consent. The election criteria for spinal anesthesia were as follows: American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) risk group 1 or 2; risk score for conversion from LC to open cholecystectomy (RSCO) less than negative 3; and presence of gallstone disease. Standard laparoscopic technique was applied to all patients. Simple questionnaire forms were developed for both patients and surgeons to provide comments about the operation. RESULTS: The operation was completed laparoscopically on 26 patients, while 3 patients needed general anesthesia due to severe right shoulder pain. None of the patients had cardiopulmonary problems other than transient hypotension during surgery. Intravenous fentanyl (25 microg) was needed in 13 patients due to severe right shoulder pain. Five patients still had severe shoulder pain after fentanyl injection. Local washing of the right diaphragm with 2% lidocaine solution was successful in the remaining 5 patients in whom fentanyl injection failed to stop the pain. All of the patients' answers to the questions regarding the comfort of operation were "very well" at the 1-month postoperative evaluation. All surgeons stated that there was no difference from LC under general anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: All of the patients and surgeons were satisfied with LC under spinal anesthesia. Therefore, LC under spinal anesthesia may be an appropriate treatment choice to increase the number of patients eligible for outpatient surgery.