Reversal of lidocaine with epinephrine epidural anesthesia using epidural saline washout.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prolonged motor and sensory block following epidural anesthesia can be associated with extended postoperative care unit stays and patient dissatisfaction. Previous studies have demonstrated a more rapid motor recovery following the administration of epidural crystalloids in patients who had received plain bupivacaine and lidocaine epidural anesthesia. However, epinephrine is commonly added to local anesthetics to improve the quality and prolong the duration of the epidural block. The objective of this study was to determine the relationship of 0.9% NaCl epidural catheter flush volume (i.e., washout) to the recovery of motor and sensory block in patients undergoing 2% lidocaine with epinephrine epidural anesthesia. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study design was utilized. Thirty-three subjects scheduled for elective gynecologic or obstetrical surgical procedures underwent epidural anesthesia using 2% lidocaine with epinephrine (1:200,000). A T4 dermatome level of analgesia, determined by toothpick prick, was maintained intraoperatively. Following surgery, subjects were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups. Group 1 (control, n = 11) received no epidural 0.9% NaCl (normal saline [NS]) postoperatively. Group 2 (15 mL NS x 1, n = 10) received an epidural bolus of 15 mL NS. Group 3 (15 mL NS x 2, n = 12) received an epidural bolus of 15 mL NS postoperatively and a second 15-mL NS bolus 15 minutes later. Assessment of motor and sensory block was performed at 15-minute intervals until complete motor and sensory recovery. RESULTS: Times to partial and full motor and sensory recovery were significantly faster in the epidural NS groups than in the control group. Full motor recovery was more rapid in subjects receiving two 15-mL NS epidural NS boluses (30 mL total) compared with those receiving a single 15-mL NS bolus (108 +/- 9 min v 136 +/- 13 min) and significantly faster than control group subjects (153 +/- 14 min). Both NS x 1 and NS x 2 epidural bolus groups experienced significantly reduced times to complete sensory recovery when compared with the control group (NS x 1 = 154 +/- 13 min, NS x 2 = 153 +/- 9 min, control 195 +/- 14 min). CONCLUSIONS: A more rapid recovery of motor and sensory block in patients undergoing 2% lidocaine with epinephrine epidural anesthesia can be achieved with the use of 30 mL NS epidural washout. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2001;26:246-251.

Local anesthetic administration for awake direct laryngoscopy. Are glossopharyngeal nerve blocks superior?

BACKGROUND: Glossopharyngeal nerve (GPN) blocks may provide reliable analgesia for awake direct laryngoscopy, although this has not been evaluated prospectively. This study was designed to determine if GPN blocks provide a superior route of local anesthetic administration for awake direct laryngoscopy as measured by hemodynamic, gag, and subjective pain responses. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, single-blinded, crossover design was used. All participants (n = 11) were anesthesiologists. Three routes of local anesthetic administration were evaluated: 2 min of 2% viscous lidocaine swish and gargle (S&G); S&G combined with 10% lidocaine spray (S&G/spray); and S&G combined with 1% lidocaine bilateral GPN blocks (S&G/block; anterior tonsillar pillar method). Five minutes after the local anesthetic was administered, laryngoscopy was performed and sustained for 20 s. Noninvasive hemodynamic measurements and serum lidocaine concentrations were determined. Visual analogue scale scores and a poststudy questionnaire were used to assess participants' ability to tolerate local anesthetic administration and laryngoscopy and their choice for use in clinical practice. RESULTS: No significant hemodynamic changes were observed, although there was a modest increase (< 15%) in heart rate in the S&G/block group in the first minute after laryngoscopy. Serum lidocaine concentrations were higher (P < 0.05) in the S&G/block group at 5 and 10 min (0.5 +/- 0.1 and 1.0 +/- 0.2 microgram/ml) compared with the S&G group. Participants' visual analogue scale scores, which assessed their ability to tolerate laryngoscopy, showed that S&G (5.4 +/- 0.9) resulted in more discomfort (P < 0.05) than either S&G/spray (3.5 +/- 0.9) or S&G/block (3.3 +/- 0.7). The laryngoscopist's visual analogue scale scores, which assessed the ease of visualization, revealed a trend (P < 0.08) toward less coughing and gagging with S&G/spray (1.8 +/- 0.9) compared with S&G (4.0 +/- 1.3) and S&G/block (3.7 +/- 1.1). Oropharyngeal discomfort lasting 24 h or more was reported by 91% of participants after S&G/block, whereas no participant reported oropharyngeal discomfort after S&G or S&G/spray. Significantly more participants (73%) indicated their preference for using S&G/spray in future clinical practice compared with S&G (P < 0.01) and S&G/block (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Glossopharyngeal nerve blocks do not provide a superior route of local anesthetic administration for awake direct laryngoscopy. Two minutes of 2% viscous lidocaine S&G followed by 10% lidocaine spray was the anesthetic route preferred by participants and laryngoscopists.