Labor epidural placement in a woman with a cervical spinal cord stimulator.

A 37-year-old female, gravida 1 para 0, in active labor at term, with a cervical spinal cord stimulator in situ, presented for epidural analgesia for labor. She had received the cervical spinal cord stimulator some 30 months before, to treat chronic regional pain syndrome I. She was taking no medication, and was thin but otherwise healthy. The cervical spinal cord stimulator electrodes entered the C7-T1 interspace, and their end was in the epidural space at the C3 level. The electrodes were fixed to a cervical spinous process, crossed the midline high in the back and then went down the left side of her back parallel to her spine to the generator, which was in her buttock. The electrode cable could be felt high on the left side of her back, but not in her lumbar region. After consultation, it was felt safe and reasonable to proceed with labor epidural anesthesia. The procedure took place with the patient sitting, using a standard reusable 17-gauge Tuohy needle. Subsequent analgesia was acceptable. The patient also observed about 20 min after receiving the epidural medication that suddenly she could move her right hand more easily and that it felt warm. Her labor and delivery proceeded uneventfully. The spinal cord stimulator continued to function well throughout the entire process. She noticed that the feeling in her right hand returned to baseline after the delivery.

Inadvertent administration of magnesium sulfate through the epidural catheter: report and analysis of a drug error.

We present two reports of pregnant women in labor who inadvertently received a magnesium sulfate solution in their epidural space. Both women received approximately 9 mg of magnesium sulfate, and neither of them demonstrated any signs or symptoms of focal neurological toxicity. Once the mistakes were discovered and appropriate medication was delivered, the patients attained an acceptable level of analgesia.

Clinically significant concentrations of local anesthetics inhibit Staphylococcus aureus in vitro.

This study explores which concentrations of local anesthetics might be expected to inhibit the growth of Staphylococcus aureus. Serial dilutions were made of 0.5% and 0.75% bupivacaine, 2% and 5% lidocaine, 2% and 3% chloroprocaine, and 0.2% and 1% ropivacaine. To each concentration of local anesthetic solution, Mueller Hinton broth medium and Staphylococcus aureus were added. The resulting solutions were incubated and then observed for growth 24 and 48 h later. The minimum concentrations of the local anesthetics that could inhibit growth of Staphylococcus aureus were 0.25% bupivacaine, 1.25% lidocaine and 0.75% chloroprocaine. The inhibitory concentration of ropivacaine could not be determined because the more concentrated solutions precipitated in the Mueller Hinton broth. Local anesthetics may help protect against epidural abscess formation if they are used in sufficiently high concentrations. This effect may help explain the very low reported incidence of epidural abscess.

Cephalosporins can be given to penicillin-allergic patients who do not exhibit an anaphylactic response.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of intraoperative allergic reactions to cephalosporins in patients who claim to be allergic to penicillin. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: University-affiliated hospital. MEASUREMENTS: 2,933 intraoperative anesthesia records of all adult orthopedic patients treated at our institution during a 14-month period (7/96-8/97) were reviewed for antibiotic use and allergic reactions. MAIN RESULTS: Most of the 2,933 orthopedic patients, including 413 patients who were allergic to penicillin, received a cephalosporin (usually cefazolin) during their procedure. Only one of the penicillin-allergic patients may have had an allergic reaction to the cephalosporin, because diphenhydramine and hydrocortisone were given at the beginning of the case. However, no mention was made on the chart about itching or a rash or hives. One of the non-penicillin-allergic patients did develop a rash while the cephalosporin was infusing, requiring discontinuation of the antibiotic. CONCLUSIONS: Given the low incidence of allergic reactions, it appears to be safe to administer cephalosporins to patients who claim to be allergic to penicillin. However, no conclusion can be made concerning patients who report severe or anaphylactic reactions to penicillin, because these patients probably were excluded from the study.

The rate of successful reactivation of labor epidural catheters for postpartum tubal ligation surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Epidural catheters placed for analgesia during labor and delivery can be reused in the postpartum period for postpartum tubal ligation anesthesia. This study examined the success rate of such reactivation of epidural catheters. METHODS: We studied all patients who had received an epidural anesthetic for labor and delivery and who had the epidural catheter reactivated at a later time to provide anesthesia for a postpartum tubal ligation (PPTL) procedure between January, 1993 and June, 1995. The patients were divided into four groups based on the interval between delivery and PPTL incision: (a) less than 8 hours, (b) 8 hours to less than 16 hours, (c) 16 hours to less than 24 hours and (d) 24 hours or more. RESULTS: Overall, 92% (129/140) of the patients had their epidural catheters successfully reactivated. The success rate in all but the last group was over 90%, while only 80% of catheters could be reactivated if left in place for more than 24 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural catheters can be reactivated reliably for as long as 24 hours after they are placed.

Safety of spinal and epidural anesthesia in parturients with chorioamnionitis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The safety of spinal and epidural anesthesia in patients with chorioamnionitis was explored. METHODS: A retrospective study was made of the charts of 517 parturients who had received epidural anesthesia and 14 who had received spinal anesthesia before delivery and whose placentas had subsequently been found to be positive for chorioamnionitis. RESULTS: Of the 146 blood culture results that were reported, 13 were positive. Of these 13 blood cultures, 5 had been drawn within 6 hours after placement of the epidural block, and four of the five bacteremic patients did not receive antibiotics until after the regional anesthetic was administered. One quarter (11/45) of the patients who were febrile and three quarters (174/229) of those who had leukocytosis before their block received no antibiotics before the block was placed. After the epidural block was performed, the catheter was left in place for over 24 hours in 18% (46/260) of the women who spiked a fever and in 14% (18/130) of those who exhibited leukocytosis during that period. There was no report of an epidural or spinal abscess or of meningitis in any of the women in the study. CONCLUSION: Conduction anesthesia may be safe in parturients with chorioamnionitis without prior antibiotic therapy.

Epidural analgesia for labour and delivery: fentanyl or sufentanil?

PURPOSE: The highly lipid soluble opioids, fentanyl and sufentanil, are used in combination with local anaesthetics with/without epinephrine to provide epidural analgesia during labour and delivery. Our aim was to determine whether wither opioid was superior when used with low dose local anaesthetic. METHODS: In a double-blind study patients were randomized to two epidural infusion groups: Group I (n = 50) fentanyl 2 micrograms.ml-1 with bupivacaine 0.015% and epinephrine 2 micrograms.ml-1, Group II(n = 50) sufentanil 1 microgram.ml-1 with bupivacaine 0.015% and epinephrine 2 micrograms.ml-1. Following a 20 ml bolus of the study solution an infusion was started at 10 ml.h-1. To achieve analgesia patients could receive two boluses of 5 ml of the study solution and if analgesia was still inadequate, a further 5 ml bupivacaine 0.25% was used. Pain and overall satisfaction were assessed with a 10-point visual scale. Plasma samples obtained from the mother at the time the infusion was discontinued and from the umbilical cord vein at delivery were assayed to determine opioid concentration. RESULTS: Pain scores were greater for Group I than for Group II patients throughout the first and second stages of labour (P = 0.002). More patients in Group I (42%) requested a dose of bupivacaine 0.25% than in Group II (6%) (P < 0.001) and the total dose of bupivacaine given to Group I patients was greater than that of Group II, 26.0 +/- 22.0 mg vs. 13.4 +/- 12.6 mg, P = 0.005. There were no differences with respect to first or second stage duration, incidence of side effects, infusion duration, outcome of labour or neonatal Apgar scores. There was no opioid accumulation in either maternal or foetal blood. CONCLUSION: Epidural opioid infusion with very low dose bupivacaine (0.015%) achieved an overall high level of patient satisfaction in both groups without serious maternal or neonatal side effects. At the fentanyl-to-sufentanil ratio used here patients receiving sufentanil had lower pain scores and substantially fewer patients required bupivacaine rescue.

Postcesarean delivery epidural patient-controlled analgesia. Fentanyl or sufentanil?

BACKGROUND: The highly lipid-soluble opioids, fentanyl and sufentanil, frequently are used in combination with local anesthetic agents and/or epinephrine to provide postoperative epidural analgesia. The authors compared the incidence of side effects and patient satisfaction during prolonged epidural patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) infusions of these opioids in combination with bupivacaine and epinephrine. METHODS: Using a double-blind study design, 250 patients scheduled for elective cesarean delivery were, on arrival in the postanesthesia care unit, randomized into two epidural PCA infusion groups: group I (n = 125) received fentanyl 2 micrograms/ml with bupivacaine 0.01% and epinephrine 0.5 micrograms/ml and group II (n = 125) received sufentanil 0.8 micrograms/ml with bupivacaine 0.01% and epinephrine 0.5 microgram/ml. The initial infusion rate was 16 ml/h with self-administered 3-ml boluses every 15 min by PCA as desired. At intervals after discontinuation of the infusion, plasma samples were obtained to determine opioid concentrations. RESULTS: The median overall satisfaction scores were 9.0 for group I and 10.0 for group II (difference not significant). Pain relief was satisfactory and comparable in both groups, and all patients could ambulate easily. The total number of times PCA requests were made was greater (P < 0.05, by Wilcoxon rank-sum test) for group I than for group II (106.7 +/- 312 vs. 70.8 +/- 138). There were no differences between the groups with respect to incidence of pruritus, sedation, and nausea; however, vomiting occurred more frequently with sufentanil than with fentanyl (12% vs. 4.8%, respectively; P < 0.05). At approximately 1-2 h after discontinuation of the infusion, 1 patient receiving fentanyl and 42 patients receiving sufentanil complained of lightheadedness and dizziness (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Epidural PCA in both groups had no serious side effects and achieved a high level of patient satisfaction. Those receiving sufentanil made fewer PCA requests but had a significantly greater incidence of vomiting during the infusion and dizziness after the termination of the infusion. Epidural sufentanil offered no advantages over epidural fentanyl.