Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe anesthetic and recovery profile of two doses (60 and 80 mg) of plain mepivacaine for ambulatory spinal anesthesia.
Reports of transient neurological symptoms with the use of subarachnoid lidocaine has generated interest in alternate local anesthetics of intermediate duration, such as mepivacaine. This prospective randomized, double-blinded, dose-response study examined the anesthetic and recovery profiles of 60- and 80-mg doses of preservative-free plain mepivacaine for ambulatory spinal anesthesia. Sixty patients undergoing ambulatory anterior cruciate ligament repair of the knee under spinal anesthesia were randomized into two groups; Group 1 (29 patients) received 4 mL of 1.5% (60-mg dose) and Group 2 (31 patients) received 4 mL of 2% (80-mg dose) of plain mepivacaine. All patients received a combined spinal-epidural anesthetic technique. The epidural catheter was used only in the event the surgery outlasted the duration of surgical anesthesia with subarachnoid mepivacaine. Epidural supplementation was administered in three patients (12%) in Group 1 and one patient (3%) in Group 2 when the sensory block regressed to L-1 with surgery expected to last longer than 15 min. The cephalad dermatome level of the block and degree of motor block was comparable in the two groups. Times to two-segment and T-10 regression were comparable in the two groups (112 +/- 26 min in Group 1 versus 122 +/- 28 min in Group 2). Time to L-1 regression was significantly longer in Group 2 (146 +/- 28 min in Group 1 versus 159 +/- 19 min in Group 2). All of the ambulatory milestones were significantly faster in Group 1. Side effects, such as hypotension and emesis were negligible, severe bradycardia and urinary retention did not occur, and none of the patients in the two groups reported transient neurological symptoms over 24 h. In conclusion, plain mepivacaine in a 60- or 80-mg dose is a suitable local anesthetic choice for ambulatory spinal anesthesia with respect to anesthetic, as well as recovery profiles. ⋯ We evaluated the anesthetic and recovery profiles of 60- and 80-mg doses of plain mepivacaine for ambulatory spinal anesthesia. Both doses produced comparable sensory and motor block. Sensory and motor regression and ambulatory milestones were 20-30 min longer with the 80-mg dose. Side effects were negligible and transient neurological symptoms were not reported during a 24-h follow-up.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialMultiple-injection axillary brachial plexus block: A comparison of two methods of nerve localization-nerve stimulation versus paresthesia.
We conducted this prospective study to compare the onset time and the success rate of a multiple-injection axillary brachial plexus block performed by using two methods of nerve localization: paresthesia elicitation or nerve stimulation. Each of the major nerves of the plexus was located by elicitation of a paresthesia (Group PAR; n = 50) or by nerve stimulation (Group PNS; n = 50) and injected with 10 mL of local anesthetic solution. Time to perform the block, onset time of the primary block, time to achieve readiness for surgery, and total anesthetic time were significantly shorter in Group PNS than in Group PAR. The incidence of complete block was larger in Group PNS than in Group PAR (91% vs 76%; P: < 0. 05), and this was related to a larger success rate for anesthetizing the radial and the musculocutaneous nerves (P: < 0.05). The frequency of venous puncture was larger in Group PAR (P: < 0.05). For multiple-injection axillary brachial plexus block, we conclude that nerve stimulation resulted in a greater success rate and a faster onset than paresthesia elicitation, and it should be considered when the radial and musculocutaneous nerve distributions are involved in the surgical area. ⋯ Two methods of nerve localization were compared when performing an axillary brachial plexus block by the multiple-injection technique. Nerve stimulation provided a faster onset and a greater incidence of complete block, related to a better success rate for anesthetizing the radial and the musculocutaneous nerves, than paresthesia elicitation.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe effect on intracuff pressure of various nitrous oxide concentrations used for inflating an endotracheal tube cuff.
We sought to determine the optimal concentration of nitrous oxide (N(2)O) for inflating endotracheal tube cuffs, to avoid overinflation and air leaks. Female patients undergoing endotracheal intubation (inner diameter 7.5 mm) during anesthesia with 67% N(2)O were randomly assigned to five groups of 25 subjects each, in which cuffs were inflated with 0% (Air), 30% (N30), 40% (N40), 50% (N50), or 67% (N67) N(2)O. The cuff pressure and the N(2)O concentration in the cuff were measured. In an additional 15 patients (N40-a group), pilot balloons were replaced with metal tubes, and the mouths and noses of the patients were wrapped with tape, to minimize N(2)O efflux into the air. Postoperative sore throats were evaluated in double-blinded interviews. Cuff pressures increased significantly in the Air and N30 groups but decreased in the N67 group. Cuff pressures were <22 mm Hg in the N40 and N50 groups, but the N50 group had air leaks. The N(2)O concentration in the cuff in the N40 group was significantly smaller than that in the N40-a group, suggesting N(2)O rediffusion. The incidence of sore throats (40% in the Air group) was reduced significantly in the N40 and N50 groups. Therefore, 40% N(2)O is optimal for filling the cuff during anesthesia with 67% N(2)O. ⋯ Nitrous oxide (N(2)O) diffuses into the cuff, equilibrating at a smaller concentration than the gas mixture with which patients are ventilated. Our data indicate that inflation of the cuff with 40% N(2)O is recommended to prevent both excessive endotracheal cuff pressure and air leaks during anesthesia with 67% N(2)O, reducing postoperative sore throats.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 2000
The safety of one, or repeated, vital capacity maneuvers during general anesthesia.
A vital capacity maneuver (VCM) (inflating the lungs to 40 cm H(2)O for 15 s) is effective in relieving atelectasis during general anesthesia or after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). The study was undertaken to investigate the safety of one or repeated VCM. Five groups of six pigs were studied. Two groups had general anesthesia for 6 h and one group received a VCM every hour. Three other groups received CPB. VCM was performed after CPB in two of these groups. VCM was then repeated every hour in one of the groups. Lung damage was evaluated by extravascular lung water (EVLW) measurement, light microscopy, and the half-time (T(1/2)) of disappearance from the lung of a nebulized aerosol containing (99m)Tc-DTPA. No changes were noted in extravascular lung water. The pigs subjected to VCM decreased their T(1/2). In the groups exposed to repeated VCM, T(1/2) remained lowered (CPB pigs) or decreased over time (non-CPB pigs). No lung damage could be seen on the morphology study. These results suggest that one VCM is a safe procedure. The increase in lung clearance of (99m)Tc-DTPA not associated with an increase in lung water when VCM is repeated may have been caused by an increase in lung volume. Therefore, repeated VCM also appears to be safe. ⋯ This study demonstrates in an animal model that inflating the lung once or repeatedly to the vital capacity is a safe procedure. This maneuver, also called the vital capacity maneuver, can be used to relieve lung collapse which occurs in all patients during general anesthesia.