Spinal anesthesia with tetracaine in 7.5% or 0.75% glucose in adolescents and adults

Subarachnoid morphine, bupivacaine and fentanyl as part of combined spinal-epidural analgesia for low anterior resection. A prospective, randomised, double-blind clinical trial

This study was designed to compare the efficacy of subarachnoid morphine alone or in combination with bupivacaine and fentanyl for combined spinal-epidural analgesia in colorectal surgery. This is a prospective, randomised, double-blind clinical trial. Sixty patients undergoing low anterior resection were assigned to one of three groups: subarachnoid morphine, bupivacaine and fentanyl, subarachnoid morphine and bupivacaine or subarachnoid morphine only. Epidural catheter placement and subarachnoid injection were done via a combined spinal-epidural Epistar needle at L2-3. The epidural catheter was used for scheduled intraoperative bupivacaine and intermittent postoperative bupivacaine and morphine administration. Intraoperative epidural bupivacaine, intraoperative intravenous fentanyl use, time to first analgesia request, postoperative visual analogue scale pain scores, tramadol requirements and side-effects were recorded for 72 hours. Postoperative analgesia was comparable in all groups. Intraoperative fentanyl and bupivacaine consumption was lowest in the morphine, bupivacaine and fentanyl group. Time to first analgesia request was longer in the morphine, bupivacaine and fentanyl compared to the morphine group (P = 0.009). Tramadol use was lower in the morphine and bupivacaine group compared to morphine, bupivacaine and fentanyl (P = 0.017) on postoperative day two. There were no significant adverse effects. All patients ambulated the morning after surgery. The addition of bupivacaine and fentanyl to subarachnoid morphine did not confer any advantage on postoperative visual analogue scale scores and tramadol use, but lowered the need for additional intraoperative intravenous fentanyl and epidural bupivacaine and prolonged the time to first analgesia request.

Combined spinal-epidural analgesia vs. intermittent bolus epidural analgesia for pain relief after major abdominal surgery. A prospective, randomised, double-blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The primary aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia vs. intermittent bolus epidural analgesia (EA) for pain relief after major abdominal surgery. The secondary aim was to assess the effects of fentanyl addition to subarachnoid morphine and bupivacaine.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomised, double-blind trial; 160 patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery enrolled. All patients had a thoracic epidural catheter for administration of intra-operative and postoperative analgesia. Patients were assigned to one of four groups: (i) subarachnoid morphine, bupivacaine and fentanyl (MBF group); (ii) morphine and bupivacaine (MB group); (iii) morphine (M group) and (iv) normal saline (EA group). Use of additional intravenous (i.v.) fentanyl and epidural bupivacaine was recorded to measure the need for supplemental intra-operative analgesia. Pain at rest, with movement, and with cough (measured with a visual analogue scale), additional analgesia requests, and side effects were recorded over 72 h postoperatively.

RESULTS

Compared with the EA group, the MBF group had significantly reduced pain with cough and lower analgesia requirements during the first 24 h (p<0.001) and after EA discontinuation (p=0.041). The MBF group required less intra-operative epidural bupivacaine compared with all other groups (p<0.001), and less intra-operative i.v. fentanyl compared with group M (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined spinal-epidural improved intra-operative analgesia and reduced pain with cough in the immediate postoperative period. The addition of fentanyl to subarachnoid morphine and bupivacaine decreased the need for additional i.v. fentanyl and epidural bupivacaine analgesia.

Inclusion of epinephrine to hyperbaric tetracaine and the supine position enhance the cephalad spread of spinal anaesthesia compared with hyperbaric teracaine alone in the lithotomy position

BACKGROUND

Intrathecal epinephrine can produce prolongation of duration of spinal anaesthesia by reducing vascular absorption of the local anaesthetics. The patient's positioning can change the cephalad spread of hyperbaric local anaesthetics by affecting the lordosis of the vertebral canal. These factors combined are expected to affect the cephalad spread of sensory block levels. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether combined use of epinephrine with hyperbaric tetracaine in the supine position can enhance the cephalad spread of sensory block levels compared with hyperbaric tetracaine alone in the lithotomy position.

METHODS

ASA physical status I or II 48 urological (lithotomy group) and 48 orthopaedic patients (supine group) scheduled to undergo elective surgical procedures in the lithotomy or supine position under spinal anaesthesia were enrolled. Patients in each group were randomly divided into two subgroups to receive intrathecal 10 mg of hyperbaric tetracaine with or without 0.2 mg of epinephrine (Groups L, LE, S, and SE). The extent of sensory blockade was assessed by loss of cold sensation. After achievement of sensory blockade up to T10, the patients in Groups L and LE were immediately placed in the lithotomy position. Patients in Groups S and SE were maintained in the supine position.

RESULTS

The highest sensory blockade in the SE Group was on average statistically significantly higher than in the L Group. The mean time taken to the highest sensory blockade in the SE Group was statistically significantly longer than in Groups L and S. Atropine for bradycardia was used more frequently in the SE Group than in the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined use of epinephrine with hyperbaric tetracaine in the supine position can enhance the cephalad spread of sensory block levels compared with hyperbaric tetracaine alone in the lithotomy position.