The effects of solution concentration and epinephrine on lateral distribution of hyperbaric tetracaine spinal anesthesia

Départment APSIC, Hôpital Cantonal Universitaire, Geneva, Switzerland.
Anesthesia & Analgesia (Impact Factor: 3.47). 11/1996; 83(4):755-9. DOI: 10.1097/00000539-199610000-00017
Source: PubMed


In a search of a differential spinal block between dependent and nondependent sides, we investigated whether the use of a larger concentration of hyperbaric tetracaine (T) and/or the omission of epinephrine (E) would provide differential spread in patients left for 15 min in the lateral decubitus position. Spinal anesthesia was performed in the lateral decubitus position with the operated side dependent in 60 patients scheduled for lower limb surgery. All patients remained lateral for 15 min after spinal injection before being turned supine. They received 12 mg of T in 10% dextrose and E 0.2 mg was added when predicted duration of surgery was more than 90 min. The concentration of T to be used for each patient was randomized. This resulted in four groups of 15 patients: T 0.5% + E (control group), T 1% + E, T 0.5%, and T 1%. A unilateral anesthesia was defined as the presence of an adequate sensory (L-1 or higher) and/or motor (3 degrees) blockade on the dependent side and the absence of one or both modalities on the nondependent side, or as a duration of sensory (regression to L-2) and motor (1 degrees of recovery) blockade 20% longer on the dependent compared to the nondependent side. None of the 60 patients showed unilateral sensory block. A comparable number of patients in all groups showed unilateral motor block: four in T 0.5% + E, two in T 1% + E, four in T 0.5%, and five in T 1%. Likewise, a comparable number of patients in all groups showed a prolonged duration of sensory and motor block, respectively: six and eight in T 0.5% + E, six and nine in T 1% + E, six and eight in T 0.5%, and seven and seven in T 1%. In conclusion, although a preferential distribution of hyperbaric T toward the dependent side in patients of all four groups was noticed, the use of a larger concentration of T, omission of E, or combination of these two factors did not provide a more marked differential spread when compared to the standard solution of T 0.5% + E.

3 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim: Unilateral spinal anaesthesia permits early recovery and short ambulatory stay. Our study aimed to search if meperidine may prolong sensory block time when added to hyperbaric bupivacaine. Methods: This is a prospective, double blinded study: Ambulatory, 46 consenting patients aged 18-60 years, undergoing unilateral knee arthroscopy were randomized in two groups. saline group (n=20): 1.3 ml of hyperbaric bupivacaine and 0.2 ml of serum physiologic was used. Meperidine group (n=20): 1.3 ml of hyperbaric bupivacaine and 0.2 ml of 5% meperidine was used. Sensory block times, duration of spinal anaesthesia, intraoperative adverse effects and patient satisfaction were recorded. Results: Mean duration of sensory block was greater in the meperidine group compared with the saline group. Strict unilateral block and hypotension were comparable among groups. Conclusion: Addition of meperidine to hyperbaric bupivacaine in unilateral spinal anaesthesia prolonged analgesia without effecting total anesthesia time with minimal adverse effects.
    European Journal of General Medicine 05/2008; 5(1).
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Spinal anesthesia is an old, simple, and popular anesthetic technique, yet much remains unknown regarding pertinent anatomy, physiology, and pharmacology. Investigations into physiologic effects of spinal anesthesia reveal complex actions on multiple organ systems. New local anesthetics, analgesic additives, and techniques are being investigated for different applications as the practice of medicine focuses on outpatient care. Safety of spinal agents and complications from spinal anesthesia continue to be examined and re-examined to improve safety. Further study will be needed to fully resolve these issues and to further understand and improve the clinical use of spinal anesthesia.
    Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 06/2002; 49:R36-R40. DOI:10.1007/BF03018133 · 2.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
Show more