A comparison of minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia and local anesthesia/propofol infusion for outpatient knee arthroscopy.

UNLABELLED: Traditional methods of spinal anesthesia have proven problematic in the outpatient setting. Minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia (SAB(MLF)) may be the adaptation necessary to reestablish spinal anesthesia in this venue. One hundred patients scheduled for outpatient knee arthroscopy were randomized to receive either local anesthesia plus a titrated IV propofol infusion (LA/PI) or SAB(MLF) using 20 mg lidocaine 0.5% + 20 microg fentanyl. Patients received midazolam 0.02-0.03 mg/kg IV and fentanyl 0.75-1.0 microg/kg IV upon arrival in the operating room before lumbar puncture or propofol infusion. The propofol infusion was begun at 50-75 microg. kg(-)(1). min(-)(1) and titrated to maintain patient comfort. Boluses (200-400 microg/kg) were given as needed. Local anesthesia included 30 mL lidocaine 1% with epinephrine 1:200,000 intraarticularly plus 10 mL at the portal sites. Three patients (6%) in the LA/PI group versus none in the SAB(MLF) group required general anesthesia. Airway support was required in 54% of the LA/PI patients and in none of the SAB(MLF) patients. Total operating room time (43 vs 45 min), time to home readiness (43 vs 45 min), actual discharge times (73.5 min in both groups), and the incidence of discharge >90 min (22% vs 24%) were the same for both LA/PI and SAB(MLF) groups. LA/PI and SAB(MLF) groups differed in terms of postoperative pruritus (8% vs 68%), pain (44% vs 20%), nausea (8% vs 22%), and ability to void before discharge (56% vs 32%). One patient in each group had mild difficulty initiating voiding at home, but neither required medical attention. In both groups, 90% of patients were either "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their anesthetic. The two techniques provided comparable patient satisfaction and efficiencies both intraoperatively and in postoperative recovery and discharge. The efficiencies of these techniques were not dependent on special provisions of the physical plant or the practice model. IMPLICATIONS: Both local anesthesia supplemented by a titrated IV propofol infusion and minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia for outpatient knee arthroscopy provide high patient satisfaction with equally rapid recovery and discharge.

A comparison of minidose lidocaine-fentanyl and conventional-dose lidocaine spinal anesthesia.

The syndrome of transient neurologic symptoms (TNS) after spinal lidocaine has been presumed to be a manifestation of local anesthetic neurotoxicity. Although TNS is not associated with either lidocaine concentration or dose, its incidence has never been examined with very small doses of spinal lidocaine. One hundred ten adult ASA physical status I and II patients presenting for arthroscopic surgery of the knee were randomly assigned to receive spinal anesthesia with either 1% hypobaric lidocaine 50 mg (Group L50) or 1% hypobaric lidocaine 20 mg + 25 microg fentanyl (Group L20/F25). Hemodynamic data, block height and regression, and time to first micturition and discharge were recorded. Follow-up phone calls were made by a blinded researcher at 48-72 h using a standardized questionnaire. Both groups had a median peak cephalad block level of T10. Lidocaine 50 mg was associated with a greater decrease in systolic blood pressure and a greater need for ephedrine. Time until block regression to the S2 dermatome (80 vs. 110 min) and outpatient time to void (130 vs 162 min) and discharge (145 vs. 180 min) were faster in the L20/F25 group. Complaints of TNS were found in 32.7% of the patients in the L50 group and in 3.6% of the patients in the L20/F25 group. We conclude that spinal anesthesia with lidocaine 20 mg + fentanyl 25 microg provided adequate anesthesia with greater hemodynamic stability and faster recovery than spinal anesthesia with lidocaine 50 mg. The incidence of TNS after spinal lidocaine 20 mg + fentanyl 25 microg was significantly less than that after spinal lidocaine 50 mg.