Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialPeribulbar anesthesia with either 0.75% ropivacaine or a 2% lidocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine mixture for vitreoretinal surgery: a double-blinded study.
No study has evaluated the efficacy of ropivacaine in peribulbar block for ophthalmic surgery. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study was to compare ropivacaine and a lidocaine-bupivacaine mixture in peribulbar anesthesia. Sixty ASA physical status I or II patients scheduled for elective vitreoretinal surgery were randomized to receive a peribulbar block with 8 mL of either 0.75% ropivacaine (ropivacaine group, n = 30) or a 1:1 mixture of 2% plain lidocaine and 0.5% plain bupivacaine (lido-bupivacaine group, n = 30). Time required for onset of surgical anesthesia, quality of postoperative analgesia, incidence of side effects, and analgesic consumption were recorded. Surgical block was achieved after 8 +/- 5 min in the lido-bupivacaine group and after 10 +/- 5 min in the ropivacaine group (P = 0.23). A 3-mL supplemental injection 15 min after block placement was required in 6 patients in the lido-bupivacaine group (20%) and in 10 patients in the ropivacaine group (33%) due to inadequate motor block (P = 0.38). On Postoperative Day 1, 26 patients in the ropivacaine group (87%) reported no pain at the verbal rating score, compared with 18 patients in the lido-bupivacaine group (60%) (P = 0.005). We conclude that 0.75% ropivacaine may be a suitable choice when performing peribulbar anesthesia for vitreoretinal surgery. ⋯ Quick onset of block with prolonged postoperative analgesia is an important goal in regional anesthesia for ophthalmic surgery. Evaluating clinical properties of 0.75% ropivacaine and a 1:1 mixture of 2% lidocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine for peribulbar anesthesia, we demonstrated that ropivacaine has an onset similar to that of the lidocaine-bupivacaine mixture and provides a better quality of postoperative analgesia.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialMetabolic and hemodynamic changes during recovery and tracheal extubation in neurosurgical patients: immediate versus delayed recovery.
Delayed recovery has been advocated to limit the postoperative stress linked to awakening from anesthesia, but data on this subject are lacking. In this study, we measured oxygen consumption (V(O2)) and plasma catecholamine concentrations as markers of postoperative stress. We tested the hypothesis that delayed recovery and extubation would attenuate metabolic changes after intracranial surgery. Thirty patients were included in a prospective, open study and were randomized into two groups. In Group I, the patients were tracheally extubated as soon as possible after surgery. In Group II, the patients were sedated with propofol for 2 h after surgery. V(O2), catecholamine concentration, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR) were measured during anesthesia, at extubation, and 30 min after extubation. V(O2) and noradrenaline on extubation and mean V(O2) during recovery were significantly higher in Group II than in Group I (V(O2) for Group I: preextubation 215 +/- 46 mL/min, recovery 198 +/- 38 mL/min; for Group II: preextubation 320 +/- 75 mL/min, recovery 268 +/- 49 mL/min; noradrenaline on extubation for Group I: 207 +/- 76 pg/mL, for Group II: 374 +/- 236 pg/ mL). Extubation induced a significant increase in MAP. MAP, HR, and adrenaline values were not statistically different between groups. In conclusion, delayed recovery after neurosurgery cannot be recommended as a mechanism of limiting the metabolic and hemodynamic consequences from emergence from general anesthesia. ⋯ In this study, we tested the hypothesis that delayed recovery after neurosurgery would attenuate the consequences of recovery from general anesthesia. As markers of stress, oxygen consumption and noradrenaline blood levels were higher after delayed versus early recovery. Thus, delayed recovery cannot be recommended as a mechanism of limiting the metabolic and hemodynamic consequences from emergence after neurosurgery.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe relative potency of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate compared with intravenous morphine in the treatment of moderate to severe postoperative pain.
Pharmacokinetic studies have shown that oral transmucosal absorption of fentanyl is relatively rapid compared with gastrointestinal absorption, and it results in increased bioavailability. We designed this study to establish the relative potency of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) compared with i.v. morphine in 133 postoperative patients. The morning after surgery, patients randomly received one dose of either OTFC (200 or 800 microg) and a placebo i.v. injection or i.v. morphine (2 or 10 mg) and an oral transmucosal placebo unit. Pain intensity, pain relief, time to meaningful pain relief, and time to remedication were recorded. Median time to onset of relief was approximately 5 min for all groups. Over the first hour, little difference among treatment groups was seen for pain intensity and pain relief. By 2 h after study drug administration, 800 microg of OTFC and 10 mg of i.v. morphine generally produced similar analgesia, which was better than the smaller doses. Duration of analgesia with the larger doses (800 microg of OTFC and 10 mg of morphine) was similar and longer that produced by the smaller doses. The larger doses of OTFC and morphine produced better and more sustained analgesia than 200 microg of OTFC or 2 mg of morphine. ⋯ The relative potency of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) to i.v. morphine was 8-14:1. In this postoperative setting, OTFC produced rapid pain relief similar to that produced by i.v. morphine. The larger doses of OTFC (800 microg) and morphine (10 mg) produced better and more sustained analgesia than 200 microg of OTFC or 2 mg of morphine.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialComparison of ropivacaine 0.2% and lidocaine 0.5% for intravenous regional anesthesia in volunteers.
A longer acting local anesthetic such as ropivacaine may offer advantages over lidocaine for IV regional anesthesia (IVRA). The objective of this investigation was to determine whether the use of ropivacaine improves the quality and duration of IVRA. In a randomized, double cross-over design, 10 volunteers received lidocaine 0.5% or ropivacaine 0.2% for IVRA of the upper extremity on two separate days with a standard double-cuff technique. Sensation to pinprick, response to tetanic stimuli, and tourniquet pain were assessed on a 0-10 verbal numeric score scale at 5-min intervals throughout the period of tourniquet inflation. Motor function was evaluated by grip strength. After release of the second (distal) cuff, pinprick sensation, motor strength, and systemic side effects were evaluated at 3, 10, and 30 min. No significant differences were observed for onset times of anesthesia and times to proximal (38 +/- 3 and 36 +/- 3 min) or distal (34 +/- 13 and 36 +/- 13 min) tourniquet release after the administration of ropivacaine and lidocaine, respectively. However, postdeflation hypoalgesia and motor blockade were prolonged with ropivacaine, and postdeflation light-headedness, tinnitus, and drowsiness were more prominent with lidocaine. We conclude that ropivacaine may be an alternative to lidocaine for IVRA. It may result in prolonged analgesia and fewer side effects after tourniquet release. ⋯ In this study, volunteers received lidocaine 0.5% or ropivacaine 0.2% for IV regional anesthesia on two study days. Ropivacaine and lidocaine provided similar surgical conditions. However, after release of the distal tourniquet, prolonged sensory blockade and fewer central nervous system side effects were observed with ropivacaine.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe effects of antagonizing residual neuromuscular blockade by neostigmine and glycopyrrolate on nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery.
The effects of neostigmine on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are controversial. In this study, we evaluated the effects of neostigmine and glycopyrrolate on the incidence of PONV and the need for antiemetics in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. One hundred healthy patients undergoing outpatient surgical procedures were included in the study. A standardized anesthetic technique was used for all patients. Patients were randomized to receive either mivacurium (n = 50) or rocuronium (n = 50) to achieve muscle paralysis. Bolus doses of mivacurium 2-4 mg or rocuronium 5-10 mg were administered to maintain one or two twitches of the train-of-four stimulation of the ulnar nerve at the wrist. After surgery, residual neuromuscular blockade was reversed with neostigmine 2.5 mg i.v. and glycopyrrolate 0.5 mg i.v. only if clinically deemed necessary (i.e., fade on train-of-four stimulation, inadequate tidal volume, reduced hand grip, or inability to maintain head lift). The incidence of PONV and the need for antiemetics were recorded in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), in the phase II unit, and 24 h after surgery. We compared patients who received neostigmine (n = 40) for reversal of residual neuromuscular blockade with those who did not (n = 60). More patients receiving rocuronium required reversal drugs than those receiving mivacurium (68% vs 10%). There were no differences in the incidence of nausea (18% vs 15%), vomiting (8% vs 12%), and the need for antiemetics (13% in both the groups) in the PACU between patients who received neostigmine and those who did not. In addition, the duration of PACU stay and the time to home-readiness were also similar between the groups. We conclude that, compared with rocuronium, the use of mivacurium decreases the need for reversal drugs. In addition, reversal of residual neuromuscular blockade with neostigmine does not increase the incidence of PONV or the need for antiemetic medications in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. ⋯ In this study, we showed that the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and the need for antiemetics do not increase with the use of neostigmine and glycopyrrolate for reversal of residual muscle paralysis.