Current local anesthetics in segmental nerve blocks

The evolution of central segmental blockades was studied in 133 patients by using epidural and spinal anesthesias. The efficiencies of 2% Ultracaine (Hoechst) and 2% Lidocaine (Egis) solutions used for epidural anesthesia and 5% Ultracaine (Hoechst) and 0.75% Bupivacaine (Astra) hyperbaric solutions were evaluated. Central segmental blockade induced by Ultracaine was found to be similar to Lidocaine and Bupivacaine in clinical parameters. At epidural blockade, the latent period was identical for the two agents and the duration of analgesia caused by Ultracaine was 20 minutes longer than that with Lidocaine, the consumption of the former being 20% less. At spinal anesthesia, there were no great differences in the depth and duration of conduction block, but with 5% Ultracaine, the analgesic zone was large (13.2 +/- 1.0 and 15.1 +/- 0.6 segments, p < 0.05). No differences were found in the magnitude of hemodynamic changes both with various anesthetics and different types of segmental blockades. The findings make it possible to regard Ultracaine as an drug that has some advantage over Lidocaine for prolonged epidural anesthesia and similar to the latter in pharmacological characteristics. Ultracaine may be regarded as alternative to Bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia.     

Peridural anesthesia versus subarachnoid anesthesia in cesarean section. Prospective clinical study

OBJECTIVE: To compare technical and clinical differences between epidural and spinal anesthesia for cesarean section. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized prospective trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 64 pregnant women at term scheduled for elective cesarean section. Two groups were randomized: A) PD Group (n = 32): continuous epidural anesthesia by administration of bupivacaine 0.5% plus epinephrine 1/400,000 via an epidural catheter. Epidural morphine 3 mg was administered at the end of surgery. B) SP Group (n = 32): "single shot" spinal anesthesia by intrathecal administration of hyperbaric 1% bupivacaine 1-1.4 ml plus morphine 0.2 mg. The pin prick block level reached T2-T6 at incision time. DATA COLLECTION: 1) Time from the beginning of anesthesia to surgical incision. 2) Hypotension episodes. 3) Ephedrine consumption. 4) Intraoperative discomfort at delivery, traction and uterine manipulation, peritoneal toilette. 5) Nausea and vomiting. 6) Apgar score. 7) Postoperative headache. RESULTS: Women in the SP group had more hypotensive episodes (81% vs 53%: p < 0.05) and more ephedrine consumption with a large individual variability (29.12 mg +/- 20.4 vs 12.83 +/- 13.8: p < 0.01) when compared to PD group, without any difference in the Apgar score. The SP group required less time consumption (10.5 min. +/- 6.7 vs 35.9 min. +/- 17.3: p < 0.01) and had less intraoperative discomfort with less analgesic and/or sedative drugs consumption (9.7% vs 29%: p < 0.05) and less vomiting (3% vs 22.5%: p < 0.05). No postoperative headache was noticed in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: With the described pharmacological and technical approach, spinal anesthesia is more suitable than continuous epidural technique for cesarean section, unless contraindicated.     

Erythrocyte Na/K ATPase activity and diabetes: relationship with C-peptide level

The purpose of this study is to clarify the volume effect of epidural saline injection 20 min after spinal anesthesia. Thirty patients undergoing combined spinal and epidural anesthesia for orthopedic surgery were randomly divided into two groups: a control group (n = 15) and a saline group (n = 15). In the control group, 2% lidocaine 3 ml with 0.4% tetracaine was injected into the subarachnoid space from L 4-5 interspace using Durasafe (Becton Dickinson, USA) and saline was not injected into the epidural space. In the saline group, saline 10 ml was injected through an epidural catheter 20 min after spinal anesthesia. The levels of analgesia 20 min after spinal anesthesia were not significantly different between the groups. However, the levels of analgesia 3, 5, 10, 40 and 100 min after epidural saline injection in the saline group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P < 0.05). The highest analgesic level was obtained 10 min after epidural saline injection and reached to T 4.3 +/- 1.1. In conclusion, epidural saline injection increases the analgesic level 20 min after spinal anesthesia because of the volume effect.     

Evaluation of the effectiveness of anecaine in central segmental blockades in orthopedic-traumatologic interventions

Efficacy of anecaine (A) (bupivacaine, Pliva) and marcaine (M) (bupivacaine, Astra) in central neuroaxial block combined with sedation is compared. In the group with epidural block (n = 167, ASA I-III), 102 patients were given anecaine and 65 marcaine in equivalent doses. In the group with spinal block (n = 82, ASA I-III), anecaine was administered to 52 and marcaine to 30 patients. In the epidural block group a catheter was placed at L2-3 or L3-4 with cranial direction. A test dose of bupivacaine (20 mg) was followed after 5-7 min by the main dose of 2 mg.kg-20 mg. Propofol was given for partial suppression of consciousness at a continuous infusion rate 1.6 mg.kg.hr. In spinal block group, bolus dose of bupivacaine (10-20 mg) was injected through the subarachnoidal approach at L2-3 or L3-4. Diazepam (0.1 mg.kg.hr) was used for sedation. Block onset, duration of sensor and motor block, and of effective analgesia were evaluated in all groups. Hemodynamics and respiratory function were monitored. Moderate hypotension (16-17% decline from basic values) was observed in all patients irrespective of bupivacaine brand. In a comparative non-randomized study anecaine showed a faster onset of block and longer duration of clinical effect than marcaine in epidural and spinal anesthesia for orthopedic surgery on the lower limbs.     

Spinal anesthesia using hyperbaric 0.75% versus hyperbaric 1% bupivacaine for cesarean section

Although 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine is commonly administered to provide spinal anesthesia for cesarean section in the United States, in some countries, only the 1% hyperbaric solution of spinal bupivacaine is available. The aim of this study was to compare 0.75% with 1% hyperbaric spinal bupivacaine for cesarean section. In this prospective study, 50 patients undergoing elective cesarean section were randomized to receive a spinal anesthetic with either 1.5 mL of 0.75% bupivacaine (n = 25) or 1.125 mL of 1% bupivacaine (n = 25). There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics, time to onset of block, or intraoperative pain. All patients had a successful block for surgery. The time from injection of the spinal anesthetic to first request for pain medication in the postanesthesia care unit was longer in the women who received 0.75% bupivacaine (4.3 vs 3 h; P < 0.05). Six women (24%) who received 1% bupivacaine versus one woman (4%) who received 0.75% bupivacaine complained of postoperative backache (P < 0.05). In addition, postdural puncture headache occurred in four women, all of whom received 1% bupivacaine (P = 0.04). In conclusion, our data suggest that 0.75% bupivacaine results in fewer postoperative problems and offers several significant benefits compared with the 1% concentration. IMPLICATIONS: Although 0.75% bupivacaine is usually used to provide spinal anesthesia for cesarean section in the United States, a more concentrated solution is popular in Europe. In this study, we compared 0.75% bupivacaine with 1% bupivacaine when administered for cesarean section and found that the 0.75% solution offers several significant benefits.     

Usefulness of radiologic monitoring of epidural catheters using epidurography

INTRODUCTION: Peridural analgesia involves a segmental block which at the thoracic level allows for early pulmonary recovery after chest or high abdominal surgery. The approach is difficult in children for reasons related to anatomy, maintenance, insertion of the catheter and dosing. OBJECTIVE: To report the radiologic monitoring of epidural catheter placement by epidurography as a technique for placing the epidural catheter in 17 patients for whom postoperative analgesia was to be provided by the same route. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighteen children (aged from 2 to 12) were given general anesthesia followed by epidural anesthesia. After catheterization of the epidural space, 1 or 1-5 ml of contrast was injected. Immediately afterwards an X-ray of the thoracic or lumbar spinal column, as appropriate to each case, was obtained. Epidural analgesia was provided with a mixture of bupivacaine 0.125% and fentanyl, in continuous perfusion or in fractionated doses. RESULTS: Placement of the catheter tip was confirmed in 17 cases by visualization of symmetry and the presence of contrast medium in the epidural space. In one case we observed extravasation of contrast medium, which had invaded the paravertebral space. The course was linear in 17 cases, with no looping. No complications related to injection of contrast medium were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Epidurography provides objective monitoring of tip placement and trajectory of epidural catheters, advantages which argue in favor of more frequent application of this imaging technique.     

The efficacy of epinephrine test doses during spinal anesthesia in volunteers: implications for combined spinal-epidural anesthesia

Epinephrine test doses may be administered during combined spinal-epidural anesthesia to determine intravascular placement of epidural catheters. This study was designed to determine systolic blood pressure (SBP) and heart rate (HR) responses to intravenous injection of epinephrine (15 microg) during spinal anesthesia. Twelve volunteers received three spinal anesthetics (lidocaine 100 mg, tetracaine 15 mg, and bupivacaine 15 mg) in a randomized, double blind, cross-over fashion. Epinephrine was administered prior to spinal anesthesia (control), 30 min after injection of spinal anesthesia, and at regression of sensory block to T-10. SBP was measured with a radial arterial catheter and HR with an electrocardiogram. Positive responses were defined as peak increase in SBP > or = 15 mm Hg or HR > or = 20 bpm after injection of epinephrine. Compared with control, peak SBP responses decreased by a mean of 12 mm Hg during spinal anesthesia with tetracaine and bupivacaine (P < 0.05). Peak HR responses decreased by 11 bpm during all three spinal anesthetics (P < 0.05). Incidences of detection of intravenous injection by positive SBP and HR responses ranged from 50% to 100% and were not significantly affected by spinal anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia reduces hemodynamic responses to intravenous epinephrine injection but is unlikely to reduce detection by positive SBP and HR criteria.     

Spinal anaesthesia with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine in elderly patients: effect of site of injection on spread of analgesia

In this randomized, observer-blind study, we have examined, in elderly patients, the effect of site of injection on analgesia levels after spinal injection of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine solution. Thirty male patients, aged 68-87 yr, undergoing minor urological surgery during spinal anaesthesia received 3 ml of a 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine solution at either the L3-4 (n = 15) or L4-5 (n = 15) interspace. The solution was injected with the patient in the sitting position. The patient remained sitting for 2 min and was then placed in the supine horizontal position. Analgesia levels were assessed bilaterally using pin-prick. The highest analgesia levels did not differ between groups (medians were approximately T7). There were no significant differences in the time to maximum cephalad spread of analgesia, maximum degree of motor block or haemodynamic changes. We conclude that injection at the L4-5 interspace has no advantage compared with injection at the L3-4 interspace.     

Evaluation of intravenous tenoxicam for postoperative cesarean delivery pain relief. Preliminary report

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To assess safety and efficacy of tenoxicam for postoperative pain relief after cesarean delivery. METHODS: Postoperative pain relief, supplemental analgesic requirements, and adverse side effects were evaluated in 80 patients undergoing cesarean delivery. Forty patients received a slow intravenous injection of tenoxicam at a fixed dose of 20 mg (2 mL), immediately before induction of spinal anesthesia with 15 mg (3 mL) of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. The other 40 patients received 2 mL of saline solution. Newborns were evaluated by means of Apgar score and umbilical cord blood gases. RESULTS: There was a significant prolongation of analgesia in the tenoxicam group (365 +/- 91.1 minutes versus 305 +/- 53.2 minutes in control group, P < .001). Supplementary analgesic requirements were significantly decreased by intravenous tenoxicam (1.55 +/- 0.70 versus 2.25 +/- 0.68). Adverse side effects did not differ between groups and few complaints of phlebitis were noted. Apgar scores and blood gas analyses were similar in neonates from both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous tenoxicam is safe and slightly increases the length of postoperative analgesia provided by the local anesthetic. It is effective in decreasing analgesic consumption in cesarean delivery patients.     

Influence of anesthetic technique in postoperative analgesia in thoracic surgery

OBJECTIVE: To compare the intensity of postoperative pain after thoracotomy with 2 anesthetic techniques: 1) thoracic epidural block with bupivacaine administered before surgery (combined anesthesia with isoflurane) and 2) conventional balanced anesthesia with isoflurane and endovenous fentanyl. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty patients scheduled for thoracotomy by lateral incision (T5-T6) were randomly divided into 2 groups of 15. Group A received 8 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine with adrenalin 1:200.000 30 min before start of surgery while group B received 8 ml saline solution through an epidural catheter inserted to T4-T8. Combined anesthesia (4 ml 0.5% bupivacaine through an epidural catheter 150 min after the first dose and isoflurane in 100% oxygen) was used in group A. Group B received balanced anesthesia with endovenous fentanyl 2.5 micrograms/kg and isoflurane in 100% oxygen. The difference in pain intensity during postoperative recovery was assessed by way of the following variables: number of boluses administered by epidural patient-controlled analgesia (bupivacaine 0.0625% and fentanyl 6 micrograms/ml); score on a visual analog scale of 10 at baseline and at 1, 3, 7, 11, 19 and 43 hours after surgery; and need for additional analgesia (diclofenac) during the 43 hours of study. Arterial gases were measured during the preoperative period and at 1, 3, 7, 19 and 43 hours after surgery. RESULTS: No significant differences in pain intensity measured on the visual analog scale, by the number of boluses per patients or by need for additional analgesia were found between the 2 groups. The total number of boluses administered and additional analgesic requirements were greater in the group receiving bupivacaine, although the difference was not significant (p = 0.095 and p = 0.056, respectively). Nor were there significant differences in pH and PaCO2 levels for the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Analgesic efficacy after thoracotomy was similar for our 2 groups receiving either combined anesthesia (epidural bupivacaine at 0.5% and isoflurane) or balanced anesthesia with isoflurane and endovenous fentanyl.     

Epidural fentanyl produces labor analgesia by a spinal mechanism

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine if epidural fentanyl produces analgesia in laboring patients by a primary spinal or supraspinal action. METHODS: Fifty-four parturients were randomized to receive epidural 0.125% bupivacaine plus one of three treatments: epidural saline-intravenous saline, epidural fentanyl (20 microg/h)-intravenous saline, or epidural saline-intravenous fentanyl (20 microg/h). The study treatments were administered by continuous infusion, whereas epidural bupivacaine use was patient controlled. RESULTS: Epidural bupivacaine use was significantly reduced by epidural (11.5+/-4.6 ml/h) but not by intravenous fentanyl (15.9+/-4.5 ml/h) compared with saline control (16+/-5.9 ml/ h). Analgesia characteristics and side effects were similar among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose epidural infusions of fentanyl produce labor analgesia by a primary spinal action.     

CSE vs. augmented epidural anesthesia for cesarean section. Spinal and epidural anesthesia with bupivacaine 0.5% "isobar" require augmentation

Incomplete anaesthesia is a major clinical problem both in single spinal and in single epidural anaesthesia. The clinical efficacy of epidural anaesthesia with augmentation (aEA) and combined epidural and spinal anesthesia (CSE) for cesarean section was investigated in a prospective randomized study on 45 patients. METHODS: Anaesthesia extending up to Th5 was aimed for. Depending on the patient's height, epidural anaesthesia was administered with a dose of 18-22 ml 0.5% bupivacaine and spinal anaesthesia with a dose of 11-15 mg 0.5% bupivacaine. Augmentation was carried out in all cases in epidural anaesthesia, initially with 7.5 ml 1% Lidocaine with epinephrine 1:400,000, raised by 1.5 ml per missing segment. The epidural reinjection in CSE was carried out as necessary with 9.5-15 ml 1% lidocaine with epinephrine, depending on the height and difference from the segment Th5. RESULTS: The extension of anaesthesia achieved in epidural anaesthesia after an initial dose of 101.8 mg bupivacaine and augmenting dose of 99 mg lidocaine reached the segment Th5. The primary spinal anaesthesia dose up to 15 mg corresponding to height led to a segmental extension to a maximum of Th3 under CSE. Augmentation was necessary in 13 patients; in 5 cases because of inadequate extent of anaesthesia and 8 cases because of pain resulting from premature reversion. The augmenting dose required was 13.9 ml. Readiness for operation was attained after 19.8 min (aEA) and after 10.5 min (CSE). No patient required analgesics before delivery. The additional analgesic requirement during operation was 63.6% (aEA) and 39.1% (CSE). Taking into account pain in the area of surgery, the requirement of analgesics was 50% (aEA) vs. 17.4% (CSE). Antiemetics were required in 18.2 (aEA) and in 65.2% (CSE). The systolic blood pressure fell by 17.7% (aEA) and in 30.3% (CSE). The minimum systolic pressure was observed after 13.4 min in aEA, and after 9.5 min in CSE. The APGAR score and the umbilical pH did not show any differences. General anaesthesia was not required in any case.     

Intraoperative intravenous ketamine in combination with epidural analgesia: postoperative analgesia after renal surgery

We designed this double-blinded, randomized, controlled study to evaluate the effect of small-dose ketamine IV in combination with epidural morphine and bupivacaine on postoperative pain after renal surgery. An epidural catheter was inserted, and the administration of morphine and bupivacaine was started before surgery. Forty patients were assigned to one of two groups (ketamine or control). The ketamine group was administered a ketamine bolus and infusion during surgery. The median visual analog pain scale (VAS) scores at rest were significantly lower in the ketamine group during the first 6 h (P < 0.01). VAS pain scores on coughing were also significantly lower in the ketamine group (P < 0.01). Cumulative postoperative total analgesic consumption was less in the ketamine group on Days 1 and 2 (P < 0.001). The first analgesic demand time was shorter in the control group (9.2 +/- 11.5 min) than in the ketamine group (22.3 +/- 17.1 min) (P < 0.0001). The incidence of nausea and pruritus was more frequent in the control group (P < 0.05). In conclusion, postoperative analgesia was more effective when spinal cord and brain sensitization were blocked by a combination of epidural morphine/bupivacaine and IV ketamine. IMPLICATIONS: Renal nociception conducted multisegmentally by both the spinal nerves (T10 to L1) and the vagus nerve cannot be blocked by epidural analgesia alone. We demonstrated that IV ketamine had an improved analgesic or opioid-sparing effect when it was combined with epidural bupivacaine and morphine after renal surgery.     

Intrathecal fentanyl prolongs sensory bupivacaine spinal block

The purpose of investigation was to study the effect of intrathecal fentanyl on the onset and duration of hyperbaric bupivacaine-induced spinal block in adult male patients. Forty-three patients undergoing lower extremity or genitourinary surgery were enrolled to receive either 13.5 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.75% + 0.5 ml CSF it, (Group I) or 13.5 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.75% + 25 micrograms fentanyl it, (Group II) according to a randomized assessor-blind protocol. The onset and duration of sensory block were assessed by pinching the skin with forceps in the midclavicular line bilaterally every two minutes for first twenty minutes and then every five to ten minutes. Similarly, the onset and duration of motor block were assessed and graded at the same time intervals using the criteria described by Bromage. The time required for two sensory segment regression and sensory regression to L1 dermatome was 74 +/- 18 and 110 +/- 33 min vs 93 +/- 22 and 141 +/- 37 min in Groups I and II, respectively (P < 0.05). Intrathecal fentanyl did not enhance the onset of sensory or motor block, or prolong the duration of bupivacaine-induced motor spinal block. Fewer patients demanded pain relief in the fentanyl-treated group than in the control group in the early postoperative period (19% vs 59%; P < 0.05). Episodes of hypotension were more frequent in the fentanyl-treated group than in the control group (43% vs 14%; P < 0.05). We conclude that fentanyl, 25 micrograms it, prolonged the duration of bupivacaine-induced sensory block (sensory regression to L1 dermatone) by 28% and reduced the analgesic requirement in the early postoperative period following bupivacaine spinal block.     

Prospective study of the incidence of transient radicular irritation in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia

BACKGROUND: There is considerable controversy regarding the role of subarachnoid 5% hyperbaric lidocaine in the syndrome transient radicular irritation (TRI). This randomized, double-blinded, prospective study was designed to determine the incidence of TRI and identify factors possibly contributing to its development. METHODS: One hundred fifty-nine ASA physical status 1 or 2 patients undergoing outpatient knee arthroscopy or unilateral inguinal hernia repair were prospectively randomized to receive spinal anesthesia with 5% hyperbaric lidocaine with epinephrine (60 mg with 0.2 mg epinephrine for arthroscopy or 75 mg with 0.2 mg epinephrine for hernia repair), 2% isobaric lidocaine without epinephrine (60 mg for arthroscopy or 75 mg for hernia repair), or 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine without epinephrine (7.5 mg for arthroscopy or 9.0 mg for hernia repair) in a double-blinded fashion. On the 3rd postoperative day, patients were contacted by a blinded investigator and questioned regarding the incidence of postoperative complications including TRI, defined as back pain with radiation down one or both buttocks or legs occurring within 24 h after surgery. Postoperatively, time from injection to block resolution, ambulation, voiding, and ready for discharge were recorded by a postanesthesia care unit nurse blinded to the group assignment. RESULTS: The incidence of TRI was greater in patients receiving lidocaine than in those receiving bupivacaine (16% vs. 0%; P = 0.003). There was no difference in the incidence of TRI between the patients receiving 5% hyperbaric lidocaine with epinephrine and those receiving 2% isobaric lidocaine without epinephrine (16% vs. 16%; P = 0.98). The incidence of TRI was greater in patients undergoing arthroscopy than in those undergoing hernia repair (13% vs. 5%; P = 0.04). There was no difference in discharge times in patients receiving bupivacaine versus those receiving hyperbaric lidocaine with epinephrine (292 vs. 322 min; P = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of TRI is greater with lidocaine than bupivacaine, decreasing the lidocaine concentration to 2% does not prevent TRI, and surgical position may be an important contributing factor. Discharge times at our institution are not different when equipotent doses of 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine or 5% hyperbaric lidocaine with 0.2 mg epinephrine are used in ambulatory patients undergoing spinal anesthesia.     

Epidural anesthesia impairs both central and peripheral thermoregulatory control during general anesthesia

BACKGROUND: The authors tested the hypotheses that: (1) the vasoconstriction threshold during combined epidural/general anesthesia is less than that during general anesthesia alone; and (2) after vasoconstriction, core cooling rates during combined epidural/general anesthesia are greater than those during general anesthesia alone. Vasoconstriction thresholds and heat balance were evaluated under controlled circumstances in volunteers, whereas the clinical importance of intraoperative thermoregulatory vasoconstriction was evaluated in patients. METHODS: Five volunteers were each evaluated twice. On one of the randomly ordered days, epidural anesthesia (approximately T9 dermatomal level) was induced and maintained with 2-chloroprocaine. On both study days, general anesthesia was induced and maintained with isoflurane (0.7% end-tidal concentration), and core hypothermia was induced by surface cooling and continued for at least 1 h after fingertip vasoconstriction was observed. Patients undergoing colorectal surgery were randomly assigned to combined epidural/enflurane anesthesia (n = 13) or enflurane alone (n = 13). In appropriate patients, epidural anesthesia was maintained by an infusion of bupivacaine. The core temperature that triggered fingertip vasoconstriction identified the threshold. RESULTS: In the volunteers, the vasoconstriction threshold was 36.0 +/- 0.2 degrees C during isoflurane anesthesia alone, but significantly less, 35.1 +/- 0.7 degrees C, during combined epidural/isoflurane anesthesia. Cutaneous heat loss and the rates of core cooling were similar 30 min before vasoconstriction with and without epidural anesthesia. In the 30 min after vasoconstriction, heat loss decreased 33 +/- 13 W when the volunteers were given isoflurane alone, but only 8 +/- 16 W during combined epidural/isoflurane anesthesia. Similarly, the core cooling rates in the 30 min after vasoconstriction were significantly greater during combined epidural/isoflurane anesthesia (0.8 +/- 0.2 degrees C/h) than during isoflurane alone (0.2 +/- 0.1 degrees C/h). In the patients, end-tidal enflurane concentrations were slightly, but significantly, less in the patients given combined epidural/enflurane anesthesia (0.6 +/- 0.2% vs. 0.8 +/- 0.2%). Nonetheless, the vasoconstriction threshold was 34.5 +/- 0.6 degrees C in the epidural/enflurane group, which was significantly less than that in the other patients, 35.6 +/- 0.8 degrees C. When the study ended after 3 h of anesthesia, patients given combined epidural/enflurane anesthesia were 1.2 degrees C more hypothermic than those given general anesthesia alone. The rate of core cooling during the last hour of the study was 0.4 +/- 0.2 degrees C/h during combined epidural/enflurane anesthesia, but only 0.1 +/- 0.3 degrees C/h during enflurane alone. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that epidural anesthesia reduces the vasoconstriction threshold during general anesthesia. Furthermore, the markedly reduced rate of core cooling during general anesthesia alone illustrates the importance of leg vasoconstriction in maintaining core temperature.     

The impact of occupation on self-reported cardiovascular morbidity in western Germany: gender differences

Two hundred one consecutive patients with cancer pain who received intrathecal pain treatment between 1985 and 1993 were included in this retrospective study undertaken to test the hypothesis that epidural metastasis is a common cause of "refractory" cancer pain and that its presence may affect the efficacy and the complication rates of intraspinal pain treatment. Fifty-seven (approximately 28%) patients were investigated by metrizamide myelography, computerized tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), laminectomy, or neurohistopathology. Epidural metastases were found in 40 (70%) and spinal stenosis in 33 (approximately 58%); 7 patients with total and 26 with partial occlusion of the spinal canal. Presence of epidural metastasis affected catheter insertion complications, daily dosages, and complications of the intrathecal pain treatment only when it was associated with spinal canal stenosis (partial or total). During the period of the intrathecal treatment, the patients with confirmed epidural metastasis and total spinal canal stenosis needed significantly (P < 0.05) higher daily doses of opioid (means = 77 +/- 103 versus 22 +/- 29 mg) and intrathecal bupivacaine (means = 65 +/- 44 versus 33 +/- 20 mg) and had significantly (P < 0.05) higher rates (14% versus 0%) of radicular pain at injection and poor distribution of analgesia than those without epidural metastasis and spinal canal stenosis. In contrast, the rate of occurrence of post-dural puncture headache was significantly (P < 0.05) lower in patients with partial (4%) and total (14%) spinal stenosis than in those without (29%). Unexpected paraplegia occurred in four patients and was due to accidental injury during attempted dural puncture (N = 1) and collapse (due to cerebrospinal fluid leakage leading to "medullary coning" of an unknown epidural metastasis (N = 3).     

Treatment of human pulmonary paragonimiasis with triclabendazole: clinical tolerance and drug efficacy

We report the anesthetic management of a patient with aortitis syndrome using combined spinal and epidural anesthesia. A 28-year-old gravida with aortitis syndrome accompanied by faints was scheduled for an urgent cesarean section. Combined spinal and epidural anesthesia was thought to be better for this case in order to monitor the cerebral circulation by her consciousness level and to reduce the hemodynamic change during surgery as compared to spinal or epidural anesthesia alone. After inserting an epidural catheter at the Th 12/L 1 interspace, spinal anesthesia was performed with 1.5 ml of 0.3% dibucaine at the L 4/L 5 interspace. The level of analgesia was under L 1 with the pinprick method 10 min after the spinal anesthesia. Next, 5 ml of 1.5% mepivacaine was injected through the epidural catheter. The level of analgesia reached to Th 6 without major hemodynamic changes. A healthy 2740 g infant was delivered and she had an uneventful recovery. We conclude that combined spinal and epidural anesthesia is useful in a patient with aortitis syndrome undergoing an urgent cesarean section in order to monitor the cerebral circulation by the consciousness level and to reduce the hemodynamic change.     

Spread of spinal anesthesia with 3 different hyperbaric solutions used in Japan

We studied the spread of spinal anesthesia with 3 different hyperbaric solutions commercially available in Japan. Percamin-S [0.3% dibucaine in 5% hyperbaric saline] (P), Neo-Percamin.S [0.24% dibucaine with 0.12% T-caine in 9.5% glucose] (N) and 0.5% Tetcaine [tetracaine] in 10% glucose (T) were studied. Two ml of each solution was administered intrathecally using a 25 gauge Quincke needle. Patients (n = 90) were allocated to one of 9 groups receiving 2 ml of P, N or T at L 2-3, L 3-4 or L 4-5 interspace. Both N and T produced significantly higher spread of analgesia than P at any of L 3-4 and L 4-5 interspaces. P and N have the same specific gravity, even though significant differences were found in spread of segmental analgesia. Local anesthesic agents and solvent solutions themselves are considered to influence the spread of spinal anesthesia as the specific gravity of hyperbaric solution does.     

Continuous spinal anesthesia vs. combined spinal-epidural anesthesia in emergency surgery. The combined spinal-epidural anesthesia technique does not offer an advantage of spinal anesthesia with a microcatheter

In this prospective study we investigated the efficacy of microcatheter spinal anaesthesia in comparison with a combined spinal-epidural technique in trauma patients. METHODS: After institutional approval 60 patients undergoing urgent lower-limb surgery randomly received either CSA (22 G Sprotte needle, 28 G nylon catheter) in group 1 or CSE (18 G Tuohy needle, 22 G epidural catheter and 25 G pencil-point needle) in group 2. An initial subarachnoid bolus of 2 ml of plain bupivacaine 0.5% was injected in both groups. Difficulties with the lumbar puncture or catheter insertion, the time required for performance of either technique and the onset of analgesia at T12 were documented. If analgesia did not reach T12 within 20 min, supplemental bupivacaine was injected either intrathecally or epidurally up to a maximum of 5 ml in the CSA group or 16 ml in the CSE group. RESULTS: The number of lumbar punctures (CSA: n = 1.8 +/- 1.5; CSE: n = 2.6 +/- 1.8; P = 0.05) and the incidence of technical problems (CSA: 13%, CSE: 47%; P = 0.012) was higher in the CSE group. In contrast to CSA, performance of CSE was more time consuming (CSA: 8 +/- 3 min, CSE: 15 +/- 8 min; P = 0.0003), and the total dose of local anaesthetics was higher in the CSE group (CSA: 3.2 +/- 1 ml, CSE: 9.7 +/- 5 ml; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Because of the higher incidence of technical problems, more time was required for the performance of CSE. As a consequence, microcatheter CSA might be preferred over CSE in trauma patients.