Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of hyperbaric 1% and 3% solutions of small-dose lidocaine in spinal anesthesia.
We examined whether the concentration of hyperbaric lidocaine affected the regression of motor block when the dose of lidocaine was kept constant at 30 mg. We also examined the spread, duration, and regression of sensory block. Sixty-five patients (ASA physical status I or II), scheduled for elective perineum or lower limb surgery, were enrolled in this study. Patients received spinal anesthesia with 1 mL of 3% lidocaine or 3 mL of 1% lidocaine. Adequate level of block was obtained for surgery in 63 of 65 patients. Whereas the administration of 3 mL of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine solution produced a level of sensory block similar to that produced by the administration of 1 mL of hyperbaric 3% lidocaine solution in spinal anesthesia, the administration of 3 mL of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine solution resulted in shorter times to full motor recovery and to urination and produced less motor block compared with 1 mL of hyperbaric 3% lidocaine solution. Two patients receiving 1% lidocaine and four patients receiving 3% lidocaine required IV ephedrine because of hypotension. Our results showed the clinical advantages of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine spinal anesthesia compared with hyperbaric 3% lidocaine spinal anesthesia for surgery of short duration. ⋯ When the dose of lidocaine was kept constant at 30 mg, hyperbaric 1% lidocaine solution resulted in shorter times for recovery from motor block and to urination than did hyperbaric 3% lidocaine solution. Levels of sensory block were similar. Therefore, the more dilute lidocaine for spinal anesthesia may be suitable for day-care surgery and short duration surgery.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe effect of vecuronium is enhanced by a large rather than a modest dose of gentamicin as compared with no preoperative gentamicin.
We compared the effect of two doses of gentamicin versus no gentamicin (NG) given before surgery on the neuromuscular relaxant effect of vecuronium. Seventy patients (intraabdominal procedures) were randomly allocated to receive preoperative large-dose (4 mg/kg) gentamicin (LD), a modest dose (1.2 mg/kg) of gentamicin (MD), or NG. No more than one dose of gentamicin was given before the vecuronium administration. Serum gentamicin levels, the time for 25% recovery of the first twitch in the train-of-four after a bolus of vecuronium, and the time from cessation of the vecuronium infusion to extubation of the trachea were estimated. Serum gentamicin levels were higher (P < 0.001) for LD than MD. The time for 25% recovery of the first twitch after the vecuronium bolus was slightly longer with LD than MD (P = 0.06) and longer in LD than NG (P = 0.001) (42.9 +/- 23.6 min versus 36.2 +/- 17 min and 27.4 +/- 9 min, respectively). The time to extubation was similar with LD and MD and longer for LD than NG (P = 0.008) (34.7 +/- 19.2 min versus 27.4 +/- 19.3 min and 19.4 +/- 10.1 min, respectively). The differences in these times were insignificant between MD and NG. Gentamicin administered as a LD rather than MD enhanced the neuromuscular blockade of vecuronium as compared with NG given before surgery. ⋯ We demonstrated that the neuromuscular relaxant effect of vecuronium is enhanced by a large (4 mg/kg) rather than a modest (1.2 mg/kg) dose of gentamicin as compared with no gentamicin given before surgery.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2003
Clinical TrialPredictor of core hypothermia and the surgical intensive care unit.
Inadvertent postoperative core hypothermia is associated with multiple physiological effects, especially in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Despite previous reports of the relationship between patient, surgical, and anesthetic factors and immediate postoperative core hypothermia, this information might need to be reconsidered in the light of progress in surgery, anesthetic, and warming techniques. We designed this prospective study of 194 postgeneral surgical patients to assess the incidence, predictive factors, and outcome of core hypothermia (tympanic membrane core temperature [Tc] <36.0 degrees C) at the time of admission to the general ICU in a large tertiary university medical center from December 2000 to March 2001. The following variables were studied: age, sex, body weight, body surface area, preoperative body temperature, ASA physical status, history of diabetic neuropathy, emergency surgery, surgical subspecialty performing surgery, type of surgery, type of anesthesia (general, regional, or combined epidural and general), temperature monitoring, use of a forced air warming technique, amount of fluid and blood replacement, duration of anesthesia, duration of surgery, and the ambient operating room temperature. Other outcomes, i.e., length of ICU stay and mortality, were also assessed. The incidence of core hypothermia was 57.1%, 41.3%, and 28.3% according to the definition of Tc <36.0 degrees C, <35.5 degrees C, and <35.0 degrees C, respectively. Multiple logistic regression showed the following risk factors for core hypothermia: high ASA physical status (odds ratio, 2.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-10.03 for ASA II; odds ratio, 8.35; 95% CI, 1.67-41.88 for ASA >II), magnitude of surgical procedure (odds ratio, 6.60; 95% CI, 1.66-26.19 for medium surgery; odds ratio, 22.23; 95% CI, 5.41-91.36 for major surgery), use of combined epidural and general anesthesia (odds ratio, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.05-10.88), and duration of surgery >2 h (odds ratio, 4.50; 95% CI, 1.48-13.68). Not using temperature monitoring seems to be a risk factor as well (odds ratio, 3.00; 95% CI, 0.87-10.12). Significant protective factors against core hypothermia were heavier body weight (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.98), higher preoperative body temperature (odds ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.65), and warmer ambient operating room temperature (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.88). In conclusion, the incidence of core hypothermia (Tc <36.0 degrees C) at the time of admission to the general ICU is still frequent. To reduce the incidence, more efforts and concern should be taken to prevent core hypothermia, especially in the patient with high ASA physical status, undergoing more intensive and lengthy surgery, and using combined epidural and general anesthesia. ⋯ In an effort to decrease the frequent incidence of core hypothermia at the time of admission to the general surgical intensive care unit, this prospective study showed that high ASA physical status, the use of a combined epidural and general anesthesia, surgery lasting longer than 2 h, and extensive surgery were the important risk factors, whereas heavier body weight, higher preoperative body temperature, and warmer ambient operating room temperature were important protective factors.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2003
Clinical TrialPatient-controlled epidural analgesia in children: can they do it?
Extensive clinical experience and many studies support the use of i.v. patient-controlled analgesia (i.v. PCA) and regional anesthesia techniques for the treatment of postoperative pain in children. In contrast, little has been reported about the ability of children to use patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) or about the efficacy of this technique. We report a descriptive analysis of prospectively recorded data in 128 children (132 procedures) in whom PCEA was used for acute postoperative pain control. Satisfactory analgesia was obtained in 119 patients (90.1%) for up to 103 h with no episodes of desaturation and without clinical evidence of toxicity or serious adverse effects. Analgesia was satisfactory with the initial settings in 89 patients; in 38 others, this was achieved with changes in PCEA settings or solution. Five patients were switched to i.v. PCA because of inadequate analgesia. Eight patients with satisfactory analgesia were converted to i.v. PCA because of adverse effects. Children as young as 5 yr had the cognitive ability to understand and the willingness to use PCEA, consistent with reported use of i.v. PCA. Careful attention should be paid to the total hourly local anesthetic dose to avoid exceeding the recommended limits. Our prospectively collected data demonstrate that PCEA provides satisfactory analgesia with a small incidence of adverse side effects in children and should be considered along with other strategies in pediatric postoperative pain management. ⋯ A descriptive analysis of prospectively recorded data in 132 children receiving patient-controlled epidural analgesia for postoperative pain relief demonstrates satisfactory analgesia without serious toxicity or side effects in children as young as 5 yr. This modality should be considered as another strategy in pediatric postoperative pain management.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2003
Comparative StudyOrganizational factors affect comparisons of the clinical productivity of academic anesthesiology departments.
Productivity measurements based on "per operating room (OR) site" and "per case" are not influenced by staffing ratios and have permitted meaningful comparisons among small samples of both academic and private-practice anesthesiology groups. These comparisons have suggested that a larger sample would allow for clinical groups to be compared using a number of different variables (including type of hospital, number of OR sites, type of surgical staff, or other organizational characteristics), which may permit more focused benchmarking. In this study, we used such grouping variables to compare clinical productivity in a broad survey of academic anesthesiology programs. Descriptive, billing, and staffing data were collected for 1 fiscal or calendar year from 37 academic anesthesiology departments representing 58 hospitals. Descriptive data included types of surgical staff (e.g., academic versus private practice) and hospital centers (e.g., academic medical centers and ambulatory surgical centers [ASCs]). Billing and staffing data included total number of cases performed, total American Society of Anesthesiologists units (tASA) billed, total time units billed (15-min units), and daily number of anesthetizing sites staffed (OR sites). Measurements of total productivity (tASA/OR site), billed hours per OR site per day (h/OR/d), surgical duration (h/case), hourly billing productivity (tASA/h), and base units/case were compared. These comparisons were made according to type of hospital, number of OR sites, and type of surgical staff. The ASCs had significantly less tASA/OR site, fewer h/OR/d, and less h/case than non-ASC hospitals. Community hospitals had significantly less h/OR/d and h/case than academic medical centers and indigent hospitals and a larger percentage of private-practice or mixed surgical staff. Academic staffs had significantly less tASA/h and significantly more h/case. tASA/h correlated highly with h/case (r = -0.68). This study showed that the hospitals at which academic anesthesiology groups provide care are not all the same from a clinical productivity perspective. By grouping based on type of hospital, number of OR sites, and type of surgical staff, academic anesthesiology departments (and hospitals) can be better compared by using clinical productivity measurements based on "per OR site" and "per case" measurements (tASA/OR, billed h/OR/d, h/case, tASA/h, and base/case). ⋯ Organizational factors, including type of hospital, number of operating rooms, and type of surgical staff, influence the clinical productivity of academic anesthesiology departments. Reporting quartile data by focused grouping variables allows anesthesiology groups to compare their clinical productivity with groups practicing in similar clinical settings.