Eficacia de la analgesia peridural continua con bupivacaína y fentanilo en la cirugía de colon / Efficacy of continuous peridural analgesia with bupivacaine and fentanyl in colon surgery

Introducción: En la cirugía de colon se persigue lograr una recuperación acelerada y se debate el método analgésico más ventajoso. Objetivo: Comparar la eficacia analgésica de la infusión continua peridural con bupivacaína y fentanilo frente a la analgesia parenteral en este tipo de intervención. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio cuasi-experimental, prospectivo y longitudinal, en 30 pacientes operados de colon entre agosto 2018 agosto 2019 en el Hospital Militar Central Dr. Carlos J. Finlay; divididos de forma no aleatoria en grupo analgesia peridural y grupo analgesia multimodal endovenosa. Resultados: La demora en despertar y extubar en el grupo peridural fue inferior (1,6-1,8 min) a los 4,9-5,0 min en el multimodal, igual ocurrió con la estadía en Unidad Cuidados Intensivos Quirúrgicos y hospitalaria aunque con discreta diferencia. El 60 por ciento de los pacientes en el grupo peridural presentaron ruidos hidroaéreos en las primeras 24 h y el 80 por ciento expulsó gases a las 48 h o antes, con marcada diferencia del multimodal. La analgesia fue buena en ambos grupos, valores de escala visual análoga inferiores en el grupo peridural, solo el 13,3 por ciento necesitó dosis rescate frente al 26,7 por ciento en el multimodal. Las complicaciones más frecuentes fueron hipotensión (23,3 por ciento) y bradicardia (10 por ciento), sin diferencias entre grupos. La analgesia aceleró la recuperación en el 87,5 por ciento de los casos en el grupo peridural superior al 76 por ciento del grupo multimodal. Conclusiones: La analgesia peridural continua con bupivacaína y fentanilo es más eficaz que la analgesia multimodal endovenosa en la cirugía de colon y acelera la recuperación posoperatoria(AU)

Introduction: In colon surgery, accelerated recovery is pursued and the most advantageous analgesic method is still under debate. Objective: To compare the analgesic efficacy of continuous epidural infusion with bupivacaine and fentanyl versus parenteral analgesia in this type of operation. Methods: A quasiexperimental, prospective and longitudinal study was carried out with thirty patients who underwent colon surgery, between August 2018 and August 2019 at Dr. Carlos J. Finlay Central Military Hospital, nonrandomly divided into an epidural analgesia group and a multimodal intravenous analgesia group. Results: The awakening and extubation time in the epidural group was lower (1.6 -1.8 min) than the 4.9 to 5.0 min for the multimodal group. The same happened with intensive care unit and hospital stay, although with a discrete difference. 60 percent of the patients from the epidural group presented hydroaerial noise within the first 24 hours and 80 percent expelled gasses at 48 hours or earlier, with a marked difference in the multimodal group. Analgesia was good in both groups, with lower visual analog scale values in the peridural group; only 13.3 percent required rescue doses compared to 26.7 percent in the multimodal group. The most frequent complications were hypotension (23.3 percent ) and bradycardia (10 percent ), without differences between groups. Analgesia accelerated recovery for 87.5 percent of cases in the epidural group, compared to 76 percent in the multimodal group. Conclusions: Continuous epidural analgesia with bupivacaine and fentanyl is more effective than multimodal intravenous analgesia in colon surgery and accelerates postoperative recovery(AU)

Anestesia peridural continua con bomba de infusión elastomérica en mamoplastia de aumento / Continuous epidural anesthesia with elastomeric infusion pump in augmentation mammoplasty

Introducción: La anestesia y analgesia peridural continua, además de proporcionar un adecuado control del dolor posoperatorio, aportan beneficios como la disminución del riesgo de trombosis y de sangrado intraoperatorio. Objetivo: Describir el comportamiento y los resultados de la aplicación de la anestesia peridural continua mediante bomba de infusión elastomérica en pacientes intervenidas de mamoplastia de aumento. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio observacional, descriptivo, prospectivo, longitudinal en el Hospital Clínico Quirúrgico Hermanos Ameijeiras, entre febrero 2014 y febrero 2016. Resultados: 72,8 fueron las pacientes entre 20 y 29 años, 57,6 por ciento era ASA I y 78,3 por ciento normopeso. El 50 por ciento fueron operadas por hipoplasia mamaria. La frecuencia cardiaca, la tensión arterial sistólica y diastólica disminuyeron a los 5 min después de aplicarse la técnica. La media del dolor fue menor de 3 en todos los momentos evaluados. Las complicaciones inmediatas fueron escasas y leves. El 85,9 por ciento calificó la técnica como buena. Conclusiones: El comportamiento y los resultados de la aplicación de la anestesia peridural continua mediante bomba de infusión elastomérica en la mamoplastia de aumento fue estable y segura. Existieron diferencias significativas en el comportamiento de las variables hemodinámicas intraoperatorias y de la intensidad de dolor, la cual fue leve en todas sus mediciones. Las complicaciones mediatas fueron escasas y no complejas. Más de las tres cuartas partes de las pacientes evaluaron de acuerdo al grado de satisfacción de buena la efectividad de la técnica anestésica para este tipo de procedimiento quirúrgico(AU)

Introduction: Continuous epidural anesthesia and analgesia, in addition to providing adequate control of postoperative pain, provide benefits such as decreased risk of thrombosis and intraoperative bleeding. Objective: To describe the behavior and results of the application of continuous epidural anesthesia by means of an elastomeric infusion pump in patients undergoing augmentation mammoplasty. Methods: An observational, descriptive, prospective, longitudinal study was conducted at Hermanos Ameijeiras Clinical Surgical Hospital, between February 2014 and February 2016. Results: 72.8 percent were patients 20-29 years old, 57.6 percent were ASA I, and 78.3 percent had normal weight. 50 percent were operated for mammary hypoplasia. Heart rate, as well as systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased 5 minutes after the technique was applied. The average pain was less than 3 in all the moments evaluated. The immediate complications were minimal and mild. 85.9 (AU) described the technique as good. Conclusions: The behavior and results of the application of continuous epidural anesthesia using an elastomeric infusion pump in the augmentation mammoplasty was stable and safe. There were significant differences in the behavior of intraoperative hemodynamic variables and pain intensity, which was slight in all its measurements. The mediate complications were scarce and not complex. More than three quarters of the patients evaluated, based on the degree of satisfaction, the effectiveness of the anesthetic technique as good for this type of surgical procedure(AU)

Combined spinal-epidural block for labor analgesia. Comparative study with continuous epidural block / Bloqueio combinado raquiperidural para analgesia de parto. Estudo comparativo com bloqueio peridural contínuo

Abstract Introduction: Lumbar epidural block is an effective and routinely used technique for labor pain relief, and the combined spinal-epidural block has the benefit of using lower doses of local anesthetics and rapid onset of analgesia. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two anesthetic techniques: combined spinal-epidural block and continuous epidural block in pregnant women for labor analgesia. Methods: Eighty patients, ASA II and III, with cephalic presentation and cervical dilation between 5 and 6 cm, undergoing labor analgesia, allocated in two groups according to the anesthetic technique: combined spinal-epidural (GI) and continuous epidural (GII). Pain severity before the blockade, time to complete analgesia, degree of motor blockade, time to full cervical dilation, duration of the second stage of labor, pain severity during the 1st and 2nd stage of labor, type of delivery, use of oxytocin during labor, maternal cardiocirculatory and respiratory parameters and adverse events, and neonatal repercussions were recorded. Results: At the time of anesthesia, pain severity was similar in both groups. Pain relief was faster in GI (4.5 ± 1.5 min) when compared to GII (11.6 ± 4.6 min) p = 0.01; pain scores in the first and second stages of delivery were lower in GI (0.9 ± 0.3 and 1.8 ± 0.7, respectively) when compared to GII (1.9 ± 0.6 and 2.2 ± 0.5, respectively), with p = 0.01 only in the first stage of labor; there was need for local anesthetics supplementation in GII; there were more frequent spontaneous deliveries in GI (80% of patients) than in GII (50%) (p = 0.045) and more frequent use of instrumental (p = 0.03) in GII (12 patients) compared to GI (4 patients); the frequency of cesarean deliveries was significantly higher (p = 0.02) in Group II than in Group I, with 4 cases in GI and 8 cases in GII; absence of maternal cardiocirculatory and respiratory changes and neonatal repercussions; more frequent pruritus in GI (10 patients) and (0 patients in GII) (p = 0.02). Conclusion: The combined blockade proved to be effective with better quality of analgesia and greater comfort for pregnant women, constituting a good option for the practice of obstetric analgesia.

Resumo Introdução: O bloqueio peridural lombar constitui técnica eficaz e rotineiramente empregada para alívio da dor do parto e o bloqueio combinado raquiperidural tem como benefícios o emprego de doses menores de anestésicos locais e rápido início de analgesia. O objetivo do estudo foi avaliar comparativamente a eficácia e a segurança de duas técnicas anestésicas: bloqueio combinado raquiperidural e peridural contínua em grávidas submetidas à analgesia de parto. Método: Oitenta gestantes, ASA 2 e 3, apresentação cefálica e dilatação cervical entre cinco e seis centímetros, submetidas à analgesia de parto, distribuídas em dois grupos de acordo com a técnica anestésica: técnica combinada raquiperidural (GI) e peridural contínua (GII). Avaliaram-se: intensidade de dor antes do bloqueio; tempo para completa analgesia; grau do bloqueio motor; tempo para dilatação cervical total; duração do 2° estágio do trabalho de parto; intensidade de dor durante o 1° e o 2° estágio do trabalho de parto; tipo de parto; uso de ocitocina durante trabalho de parto; parâmetros cardiocirculatórios, respiratórios e eventos adversos maternos; repercussões neonatais. Resultados: No momento da anestesia a intensidade de dor era semelhante em ambos os grupos. O alívio da dor foi mais rápido no GI (4,5 ± 1,5 min) quando comparado com o GII (11,6 ± 4,6 min) p = 0,01; os escores de dor no primeiro e segundo estágios de parto foram menores no GI (0,9 ± 0,3) e (1,8 ± 0,7) quando comparados com o GII (1,9 ± 0,6) e (2,2 ± 0,5) com p = 0,01 somente no primeiro estágio de trabalho de parto; houve necessidade de complementação com anestésicos locais no GII; partos espontâneos mais frequentes em GI (80% das pacientes) do que em GII (50%) p = 0,045 e instrumentais mais frequentes (p = 0,03) em GII (12 pacientes) quando comparadas com o GI (quatro pacientes); a frequência de partos cesáreos foi significativamente maior (p = 0,02) no Grupo II do que no Grupo I, quatro casos no GI e oito no GII; ausência de alterações cardiocirculatórias e respiratórias maternas e repercussões neonatais; prurido mais frequente no GI (10 pacientes) e (0 paciente no GII) p = 0,02. Conclusão: O bloqueio combinado mostrou-se eficaz com melhor qualidade de analgesia e maior conforto às gestantes, constitui boa opção para a prática de analgesia obstétrica.