ABSTRACT
In a randomised double-blind study, 45 patients, scheduled for major orthopaedic surgery under continuous spinal anaesthesia, received for relief of postoperative pain patient-controlled analgesia with either sufentanil 2 micrograms.ml-1, bupivacaine 0.0625% or a mixture of both by the intrathecal route. The mean (SD) consumption of sufentanil and bupivacaine during the first 12 h was 65.5 (27.1) micrograms and 18.2 (4.8) mg, respectively. Combining bupivacaine and sufentanil reduced the consumption of both to approximately 40% as compared to the administration of each component separately. Pain relief was very good in all subjects, although this was obtained faster with the combined regimen. Moreover, more patients in this group remained completely painfree during the entire observation period (p < 0.05). The incidence of hypotension was low and not significantly different when the plain bupivacaine group was compared with the two other groups. Nausea and vomiting were significantly more frequently observed in both groups treated with sufentanil. Motor block was not a major problem and was noticed during the first 2 h of treatment only. Tachyphylaxis did not occur. It was concluded that the groups receiving plain bupivacaine and sufentanil alone experienced pain relief of good quality. The use of a mixture, however, accelerated the onset of analgesia, improved the analgesic quality and reduced the doses for both components by 60% but at the expense of a higher incidence of nausea and vomiting.
Subject(s)
Analgesia, Patient-Controlled/methods , Analgesics, Opioid , Anesthetics, Local , Bupivacaine , Pain, Postoperative/drug therapy , Sufentanil , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anesthesia, Spinal/methods , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee , Double-Blind Method , Drug Combinations , Female , Humans , MaleABSTRACT
A double catheter, single interspace combined spinal-epidural anaesthetic was performed in 12 ASA grade 3 patients. The technique failed in one patient in whom the intrathecal catheter could not be inserted satisfactorily. In another patient, the epidural catheter was accidentally placed intrathecally. The maximum height of the block obtained with hyperbaric lignocaine or bupivacaine was below T10 in all patients and there were no adverse cardiovascular changes. As opposed to a classical combined spinal-epidural block, this technique is most suitable for very debilitated patients. The advantages are the ability to titrate the intrathecal dose of the local anaesthetic to achieve the desired dermatomal level and to test the correct position of the epidural catheter before injecting drugs intrathecally.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia, Epidural/methods , Anesthesia, Spinal/methods , Catheterization, Peripheral/methods , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anesthesia, Epidural/instrumentation , Anesthesia, Spinal/instrumentation , Bupivacaine , Catheterization, Peripheral/instrumentation , Fracture Fixation , Humans , Lidocaine , Peripheral Vascular Diseases/surgeryABSTRACT
Seventy patients (ASA I, ASA II), scheduled for a surgical intervention under epidural or combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia, were randomly allocated to one of two groups. The epidural space was identified by loss of resistance using air, followed by injection in Group A (35 patients) of 10 ml of physiological saline directed cephallad and in Group B (35 patients) by no injection. Thereafter an anaesthetist, different to the one who placed the Tuohy in the epidural space, advanced a catheter up to 10 cm into the epidural space. At each cm of advance the resistance was judged. No significant difference in resistance was found between the groups. The authors conclude that the injection of 10 ml of physiological saline into the epidural space does not facilitate the advancement of an epidural catheter.
