Dose-response effects of spinal neostigmine added to bupivacaine spinal anesthesia in volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal adjuncts often are used to enhance small-dose spinal bupivacaine for ambulatory anesthesia. Neostigmine is a novel spinal analgesic that could be a useful adjunct, but no data exist to assess the effects of neostigmine on small-dose bupivacaine spinal anesthesia. METHODS: Eighteen volunteers received two bupivacaine spinal anesthetics (7.5 mg) in a randomized, double-blinded, crossover design. Dextrose, 5% (1 ml), was added to one spinal infusion and 6.25, 12.5, or 50 microg neostigmine in dextrose, 5%, was added to the other spinal. Sensory block was assessed with pinprick; by the duration of tolerance to electric stimulation equivalent to surgical incision at the pubis, knee, and ankle; and by the duration of tolerance to thigh tourniquet. Motor block at the quadriceps was assessed with surface electromyography. Side effects (nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and sedation) were noted. Hemodynamic and respiratory parameters were recorded every 5 min. Dose-response relations were assessed with analysis of variance, paired t tests, or Spearman rank correlation. RESULTS: The addition of 50 microg neostigmine significantly increased the duration of sensory and motor block and the time until discharge criteria were achieved. The addition of neostigmine produced dose-dependent nausea (33-67%) and vomiting (17-50%). Neostigmine at these doses had no effect on hemodynamic or respiratory parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 50 microg neostigmine prolonged the duration of sensory and motor block. However, high incidences of side effects and delayed recovery from anesthesia with the addition of 6.25 to 50 microg neostigmine may limit the clinical use of these doses for outpatient spinal anesthesia.

Comparison of three solutions of ropivacaine/fentanyl for postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia.

BACKGROUND: Ropivacaine, 0.2%, is a new local anesthetic approved for epidural analgesia. The addition of 4 microg/ml fentanyl improves analgesia from epidural ropivacaine. Use of a lower concentration of ropivacaine-fentanyl may further improve analgesia or decrease side effects. METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery were randomized in a double-blinded manner to receive one of three solutions: 0.2% ropivacaine-4 microg fentanyl 0.1% ropivacaine-2 microg fentanyl, or 0.05% ropivacaine-1 microg fentanyl for patient-controlled epidural analgesia after standardized combined epidural and general anesthesia. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia settings and adjustments for the three solutions were standardized to deliver equivalent drug doses. Pain scores (rest, cough, and ambulation), side effects (nausea, pruritus, sedation, motor block, hypotension, and orthostasis), and patient-controlled epidural analgesia consumption were measured for 48 h. RESULTS: All three solutions produced equivalent analgesia. Motor block was significantly more common (30 vs. 0%) and more intense with the 0.2% ropivacaine-4 microg fentanyl solution. Other side effects were equivalent between solutions and mild in severity. A significantly smaller volume of 0.2% ropivacaine-4 microg fentanyl solution was used, whereas the 0.1% ropivacaine-2 microg fentanyl group used a significantly greater amount of ropivacaine and fentanyl. CONCLUSIONS: Lesser concentrations of ropivacaine and fentanyl provide comparable analgesia with less motor block despite the use of similar amounts of ropivacaine and fentanyl. This finding suggests that concentration of local anesthetic solution at low doses is a primary determinant of motor block with patient-controlled epidural analgesia after lower abdominal surgery.

Comparison of lidocaine and saline for epidural top-up during combined spinal-epidural anesthesia in volunteers.

This study was designed to determine the efficacy of saline as an epidural top-up to prolong spinal anesthesia during combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA). Eight volunteers received three separate CSEAs with intrathecal lidocaine (50 mg). After two-segment regression, each subject received either a saline (10 mL), lidocaine 1.5% (10 mL), or control sham (0.5 mL saline) epidural injection in a randomized, double-blind, triple cross-over fashion. Sensory block was assessed by pinprick and tolerance to transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) equivalent to surgical stimulation at the knee and ankle. Motor strength was assessed with iso-metric force dynamometry. Data were analyzed with a repeated measures analysis of variance and a paired t-test. Sensory block to pinprick was prolonged in the thoracolumbar dermatomes only by lidocaine (P < 0.05). Neither lidocaine nor saline prolonged the duration of tolerance to TES at the tested sites. Instead, saline decreased the duration of tolerance to TES by 20 and 24 min at the knee and ankle (P < 0.05). Recovery from motor block at the quadriceps was prolonged by an epidural injection of lidocaine (P < 0.05). We conclude that when 10 mL of epidural saline is administered after two-segment regression, it is an ineffective top-up and may decrease the duration of spinal anesthesia during CSEA.