Identification of the L4-5 interspinous space using difference in heights of two consecutive spinous processes / 대한마취과학회지

BACKGROUND: The appropriate landmark of spinal puncture is important for preventing spinal cord injury. L4 spinous process (SP) is the largest in size and L5 is the smallest. In this study 'height of SP' is the longitudinal length of SP on lumbar AP view. The purpose of this study was to identify the L4-5 interspinous space (ISS) using difference between L4, 5 SP heights. METHODS: Sixty-six patients scheduled for spine surgery were enrolled. After induction of general anesthesia, patients were changed to a prone position. The lumbar vertebrae were palpated from the lowest point of the lumbar spine and cranially. We palpated the difference in spinous process heights and marked the point of step-off from L4 SP to L5 SP. The level was radiologically confirmed. Direction of estimation error and the effects of spondylolisthesis, sex, and obesity were also analyzed. RESULTS: The number of accurate identification of the L4-5 ISS in males was 36 (85.7%), in females was 17 (70.8%), and in total 53 (80.3%). The difference between L4 and L5 SP heights (DL4-5SPHs) and sex affect the results. DL4-5SPHs were larger in concordant patients than in discordant patients (7.2 +/- 4.9 mm: 5.0 +/- 1.6 mm, P < 0.05). Among errors, there were more cephalad identified cases compared to caudad identified ones (12.1%: 7.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The identification of L4-5 ISS using SP height difference was considerably accurate. So, we considered this might be a useful method for spinal anesthesia.

A Comparison of Epidural Analgesia using 0.1% Levobupivacaine or 0.2% Levobupivacaine Combined with Sufentanil after Major Abdominal Surgery / 대한마취과학회지

BACKGROUND: Continuous epidural analgesia with an opioid-local anesthetic combination is an effective strategy for postoperative pain relief after abdominal surgery. Levobupivacaine, the pure S (-) enantiomer of racemic bupivacaine, is similar to its native agent for anesthetic efficacy but has less cardiotoxic and neurotoxic potential than the bupivacaine. We compared the efficacy and safety of 0.1% levobupivacaine with sufentanil or 0.2% levobupivacaine with the same dose of suentanil for patient-controlled epidural analgesia after major abdominal surgery. METHODS: Forty patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were randomized to receive either 0.1% levobupivacaine with sufentanil 0.75microgram/ml (n = 20) or 0.2% levobupivacaine with sufentanil 0.75microgram/ml (n = 20) for postoperative epidural analgesia using a patient-controlled analgesia pump at a rate of 3 ml/h and bolus dose of 2 ml on demand. Visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores at rest, on coughing, during mobilization from the supine to the sitting position and on ambulation were assessed during 48 hours following the surgery. In addition, degree of motor block and mobilization, additional analgesic requirements and adverse effects were assessed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in VAS pain scores at rest, on coughing, during mobilization from the supine to the sitting position and on ambulation. There were no significant differences in mean volume of local anesthetic consumption, additional analgesic requirements, degree of motor block and mobilization and the incidence of adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: 0.1% levobupivacaine with sufentanil provided comparable postoperative epidural analgesia and incidences of adverse effects to 0.2% levobupivacaine with the same dose of suentanil in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.