Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialTramadol added to mepivacaine prolongs the duration of an axillary brachial plexus blockade.
Tramadol is an analgesic drug that is antagonized by alpha2-adrenoceptor antagonists, as well as opioid antagonists. We hypothesized that tramadol might produce effects on an axillary brachial plexus blockade similar to those of clonidine. We designed a prospective, controlled, double-blinded study to assess the impact of tramadol added to mepivacaine on the duration of an axillary brachial plexus blockade. After institutional approval and informed consent, 60 patients (ASA physical status I or II) scheduled for forearm and hand surgery after trauma under brachial plexus anesthesia were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 40 mL of mepivacaine 1% with 2 mL of isotonic sodium chloride solution (Group A, n = 20); 40 mL of mepivacaine 1% with 100 mg of tramadol (Group B, n = 20); or 40 mL of mepivacaine 1% with 2 mL of isotonic sodium chloride solution and 100 mg of tramadol i.v. (Group C, n = 20). Sensory block, motor block, and hemodynamics were recorded before and 5, 10, 30, 60, 120, 180, and 360 min after local anesthetic injection. Duration of sensory and motor block was significantly longer (P < 0.01; P < 0.05) in Group B (299 +/- 84 and 259 +/- 76 min) than in Group A (194 +/- 35 and 181 +/- 24 min) and Group C (187 +/- 35 and 179 +/- 16 min). There was no difference in onset of sensory and motor blockade among groups. Hemodynamics remained unchanged in all patients throughout the study period. We conclude that the addition of tramadol prolongs the duration of brachial plexus block without side effects. Tramadol may be an alternative to epinephrine or clonidine as an adjuvant to local anesthesia for an axillary block. ⋯ This study demonstrates that the admixture of 100 mg of tramadol with mepivacaine 1% for brachial plexus block provides a pronounced prolongation of blockade without side effects. Our data support a specific analgesic effect of tramadol on peripheral nerves.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialComparison of sevoflurane with propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion in adults.
We performed a prospective, randomized, controlled trial to compare the quality and ease of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion after either rapid inhaled sevoflurane or i.v. propofol induction of anesthesia. Seventy-six unpremedicated ASA physical status I or II patients were anesthetized with either a single vital capacity breath of sevoflurane 8% or i.v. propofol 3 mg/kg, which produced equally rapid loss of consciousness (40.5 +/- 13.9 vs 37.7 +/- 9.9 s; P > 0.05). The LMA was inserted more rapidly in patients in the propofol group (74 +/- 29 vs 127 +/- 35 s; P < 0.01) and required fewer attempts (1.2 vs 1.6; P < 0.05) than the sevoflurane group. There was a greater incidence of initially impossible mouth opening in the sevoflurane group (45% vs 21%; P < 0.05). Once mouth opening was possible, the degree of attenuation of laryngeal reflexes was similar. The overall incidence of complications related to LMA insertion, especially apnea (32% vs 0%; P < 0.01), was more frequent in the propofol group (82% vs 26%; P < 0.01). There were four failures of LMA insertion in the propofol group and none in the sevoflurane group. Both groups had stable hemodynamic profiles and good patient satisfaction. We conclude that sevoflurane vital capacity breath induction compares favorably with i.v. propofol induction for LMA insertion in adults. However, prolonged jaw tightness after the sevoflurane induction of anesthesia may delay LMA insertion. ⋯ In this randomized, controlled trial, we compared the ease of insertion of the laryngeal mask airway in adults after induction of anesthesia with either a sevoflurane vital capacity breath technique or propofol i.v.. We conclude that sevoflurane compares favorably with propofol, although prolonged jaw tightness may delay laryngeal mask airway insertion.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe influence of head and neck position on oropharyngeal leak pressure and cuff position with the flexible and the standard laryngeal mask airway.
We conducted a randomized, cross-over study of 20 paralyzed anesthetized adult patients to test the hypothesis that oropharyngeal leak pressure and cuff position (assessed fiberoptically) vary with head and neck position for the flexible (FLMA) and standard laryngeal mask airway (LMA). Both devices were inserted into each patient in random order. Oropharyngeal leak pressure and fiberoptic position (including degree of rotation) were documented in four head and neck positions (neutral first, then flexion, then extension and rotation in random order) for each device. The size 5 was used for all patients, and the intracuff pressure was set at 60 cm H2O in the neutral position. All airway devices were inserted at the first attempt. Oropharyngeal leak pressure was similar for the FLMA and LMA in the neutral (22 vs 21 cm H2O), flexed (26 vs 26 cm H2O), and extended positions (19 vs 18 cm H2O) but was slightly higher for the LMA when the head was rotated (19 vs 22 cm H2O; P = 0.04). Compared with the neutral position, oropharyngeal leak pressure for the LMA was higher with flexion (26 vs 21 cm H2O; P = 0.0004) and lower with extension (18 vs 21 cm H2O; P = 0.03) but similar with rotation. Compared with the neutral position, oropharyngeal leak pressure for the FLMA was higher with flexion (26 vs 22 cm H2O; P = 0.0001) and lower with extension (19 vs 22 cm H2O; P = 0.03) and rotation (19 vs 22 cm H2O; P = 0.03). The difference in oropharyngeal leak pressure between flexion and extension was 7 and 8 cm H2O for the FLMA and LMA, respectively. Fiberoptic position was similar between devices and was unchanged by head and neck position. Rotation was not detected fiberoptically. We conclude that there are small changes in oropharyngeal leak pressure but no changes in cuff position in different head and neck positions for the FLMA and LMA. Oropharyngeal leak pressure may be improved by head and neck flexion and by avoiding extension. ⋯ There are small changes in oropharyngeal leak pressure but no changes in cuff position in different head and neck positions for the flexible and standard laryngeal mask airways. Oropharyngeal leak pressure may be improved by head and neck flexion and by avoiding extension.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Comparative Study Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical TrialTracheal extubation of deeply anesthetized pediatric patients: a comparison of isoflurane and sevoflurane.
We studied the emergence characteristics of unpremedicated children tracheally extubated while deeply anesthetized ("deep extubation") with isoflurane or sevoflurane. Forty children were assigned to one of two groups, Group I or Group S. At the end of the operation, Group I patients were extubated while breathing 1.5 times the minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC) of isoflurane. Group S patients were tracheally extubated while breathing 1.5 times the MAC of sevoflurane. Recovery characteristics and complications were noted. Group S patients were arousable sooner than Group I patients (10.1 + 6.5 vs 16.3 + 9.9 min). Later arousal scores and times to discharge were the same. There were no serious complications in either group. Breath-holding was more common in Group I. We conclude that the overall incidence of airway problems and desaturation episodes was similar between groups. Emergency delirium was common in both groups (32% overall: 40% for Group I, 25% for Group S). ⋯ Deep extubation of children can be safely performed with either isoflurane or sevoflurane. After deep tracheal extubation, airway problems occur but are easily managed. Return to an arousable state occurred more quickly with sevoflurane, although time to meeting discharge criteria was not different between the two groups. Emergence delirium occurs frequently with either technique.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe cost-effectiveness of methohexital versus propofol for sedation during monitored anesthesia care.
We designed this study to test the hypothesis that methohexital is a cost-effective alternative to propofol for sedation during local anesthesia. Sixty consenting women undergoing breast biopsy procedures under local anesthesia were randomly assigned to receive an infusion of either propofol (50 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) or methohexital (40 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)). The sedative infusion rate was titrated to maintain an observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score of 3 (with 1 = awake/alert to 5 = asleep). Fentanyl 25 microg i.v. was administered as a "rescue" analgesic during the operation. We assessed the level of sedation (OAA/S score), vital signs, time to achieve an OAA/S score of 3 at the onset and a score of 1 after discontinuing the infusion, discharge times, perioperative side effects, and patient satisfaction. The direct cost of methohexital was lower than that of propofol, based on the milligram dosage infused during the operation. The sedative onset (to achieve an OAA/S score of 3) and the recovery (to return to an OAA/S score of 1) times, as well as discharge times, did not differ between the two groups. Patients receiving methohexital had a significantly lower incidence of pain on initial injection compared with those receiving propofol (10% vs 23%). Because the use of methohexital (29.4 +/- 2.7 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) for sedation during breast biopsy procedures has a similar efficacy and recovery profile to that of propofol (36.8 +/- 15.9 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) and is less costly based on the amount infused, it seems to be a cost-effective alternative to propofol for sedation during local anesthesia. However, when the cost of the drug infused and drug wasted was calculated, there was no difference in the overall drug cost. ⋯ When administered to maintain a stable level of sedation during local anesthesia, methohexital is an acceptable alternative to propofol. However, the overall drug costs were similar with the two drugs.