No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Effects of Nalbuphine and Fentanyl as Adjuvants to (0.5 %) Isobaric Levobupivacaine in Subarachnoid Block for Elective Transurethral Endoscopic Surgeries
Abstract
BACKGROUND Isobaric levobupivacaine has minimal effect on positional variation of sensory and motor blockade given intrathecally. Also, it has lesser cardiotoxic and neurotoxic effects. Present study was done to compare efficacy, analgesia haemodynamic effects and any adverse effects after spinal anaesthesia with isobaric levobupivacaine with nalbuphine and fentanyl as adjuvants in transurethral endoscopic surgeries. METHODS 60 male adult patients of American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA class I-III) of age group 40 - 80 years were randomized into 2 groups (n = 30) in this prospective, double blinded study. 10 mg of 0.5 % levobupivacaine with 25 µg fentanyl in group LF and 10 mg of 0.5 % levobupivacaine with 0.8 mg nalbuphine in group LN. Parameters assessed were sensory and motor blockade characteristics and hemodynamic variables in both the groups. Adverse effects were recorded if any. RESULTS Onset of sensory and motor blockade were significantly faster in group LF compared to group LN. In both the groups, time for two segment regression was comparable. Statistically significant prolonged analgesic duration was noticed in group with nalbuphine than fentanyl as adjuvant to isobaric levobupivacaine. Difference in haemodynamic variation was not significant in both the groups. CONCLUSIONS Intrathecal nalbuphine 0.8 mg as an adjuvant with isobaric levobupivacaine 0.5 % 10 mg is as efficacious as fentanyl 25µg in transurethral endoscopic surgeries in elderly population with better hemodynamic stability. KEY WORDS Levobupivacaine; Fentanyl; Nalbuphine; Spinal anaesthesia.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Background:
Nalbuphine when used as adjuvant to hyperbaric bupivacaine has improved the quality of perioperative analgesia with fewer side effects. Fentanyl is a lipophilic opioid with a rapid onset following intrathecal injection. It does not cause respiratory depression and improves duration of sensory anesthesia without producing significant side effects.
Aim:
This study aims to compare the postoperative analgesia of intrathecal nalbuphine and fentanyl as adjuvants to bupivacaine in cesarean section.
Methodology:
A prospective, randomized, double-blind, and comparative study was conducted on 150 parturients of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II of age group 20-45 years with normal coagulation profile undergoing cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. These patients were randomized into three groups with fifty patients in each group. Group I received 2 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (10 mg) plus 0.4 ml nalbuphine (0.8 mg), Group II received 2 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (10 mg) plus 0.4 ml fentanyl (20 μg), and Group III received 2 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (10 mg) plus 0.4 ml of normal saline.
Results:
The mean duration of effective analgesia was 259.20 ± 23.23 min in Group I, 232.70 ± 13.15 min in Group II, and 168.28 ± 7.55 min in Group III. The mean number of rescue analgesics required was significantly lower (P < 0.001) in Group I as compared to Group II and III.
Conclusion:
Both intrathecal nalbuphine 0.8 mg and fentanyl 20 μg are effective adjuvants to 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine in subarachnoid block. However, intrathecal nalbuphine prolongs postoperative analgesia maximally and may be used as an alternative to intrathecal fentanyl in cesarean section.
Introduction:
Intrathecal opioids when added to local anaesthetics decrease their dosage and provide haemodynamic stability. Nalbuphine is an agonist-antagonist and acts on kappa receptors providing analgesia.
Aim:
The study aims to compare the analgesic efficacy of fentanyl with that of two doses of nalbuphine when used with injection bupivacaine heavy in spinal anaesthesia.
Materials and methods:
A randomised, double blinded, prospective study on 90 patients of ASA I and II undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery under subarachnoid block was done. Patients were randomly allocated into three groups (n=30). Each group received 12.5 mg of 0.5% of injection bupivacaine heavy along with either 25 μg of 0.5 ml fentanyl (Group F) or 0.8 mg of 0.5 ml nalbuphine (Group NL) or 1.6 mg of 0.5 ml nalbuphine (Group NH). Characteristics of sensory and motor blocks, haemodynamic changes, duration and quality of analgesia, adverse effects, sedation, VRS score and analgesic requirement were studied at different time interval intraoperatively and till 24 hours of block.
Results:
The duration of analgesia (in minute) was 441±119.69 in NL Group, 450±103.38 in NH Group and 300.0±88.53 in Group F (p=0.05). There was no significant difference regarding block characteristics and haemodynamic parameters. Total 24 hours analgesic requirement was titrated by analgesic score which was 2.25±0.7 (NH Group), 1.875±0.83 (NL Group) and 3.375±1.77 (F Group) p=0.0186 by ANOVA. The adverse effects of NL Group were least.
Conclusion:
There was no significant advantage of intrathecal fentanyl or 1.6 mg nalbuphine over low dose 0.8 mg nalbuphine.
Background and Aims
Opioids have been favored as adjuvants to local anesthetics during spinal anesthesia. Nalbuphine, a μ-receptor antagonist and ĸ-receptor agonist, seems to be a suitable adjuvant to local anesthetics. The aim of this study was to compare postoperative analgesia and adverse effects of nalbuphine and fentanyl when used as an adjuvant to hyperbaric bupivacaine during spinal anesthesia.
Materials and Methods
Sixty patients belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I and II were randomly allocated into two groups of thirty each. Patients in bupivacaine nalbuphine group (Group BN) received 0.8 mg (0.3 ml) of nalbuphine with 12.5 mg (2.5 ml) of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine diluted to 3 ml and bupivacaine-fentanyl group (Group BF) received 25 μg (0.5 ml) of fentanyl with 12.5 mg (2.5 ml) of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Patients were assessed for hemodynamic changes, sensory and motor block, early postoperative analgesia, and adverse effects.
Results
Onset, duration of sensory and motor block, and duration of effective analgesia were comparable between both groups. Postoperative visual analog scale score was 4.8 ± 1.12 in Group BN, and in Group BF, it was 3.86 ± 1.04 which was statistically highly significant (P = 0.0007). The number of patients demanding rescue analgesia in early postoperative period was 18 (60.0%) in Group BN and 7 (23.33%) in Group BF which was statistically significant (P = 0.004).
Conclusion
Fentanyl was more efficient than nalbuphine in providing early postoperative analgesia when used as an adjuvant to hyperbaric bupivacaine.
Background: Subarachnoid block (SAB) possesses many benefits with a drawback of short duration of anesthetic action. Intrathecal opioids have been used to enhance the clinical efficiency and duration of action of local anesthetic drugs. The present study was aimed to compare the clinical efficiency of intrathecal fentanyl with nalbuphine as adjuvant to 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine for orthopedic surgery of lower limbs. Patients and Methods: Sixty-eight adult patients of American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status I and II of both gender aged 25-65 years were randomized into two groups of 34 each to receive either fentanyl 25 μg (Group I) or nalbuphine 2 mg (Group II) with 3.5 mL 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine, making intrathecal drug volume to 4 mL in each group. Sensory and motor block characteristics and time to first rescue analgesic (intravenous tramadol 100 mg) were recorded as the primary end points. Drug-related side effects of pruritus, nausea/vomiting, and respiratory depression were recorded as the secondary outcomes. Results: Both groups were comparable regarding the onset and cephalic extension of block. The time to two dermatome regressions and time for complete motor recovery were significantly prolonged in patients of Group II with statistical significant difference (P < 0.05). Duration of analgesia was also extended in patients of Group II (378.0 ± 35.72 min) as compared to Group I (234.0 ± 24.10 min) with highly significant difference (P < 0.001). No drug-related side effects were observed in either group. Conclusion: Intrathecal nalbuphine 2 mg as adjuvant to 0.5% bupivacaine was clinically more efficient than fentanyl for enhancing the postoperative analgesia.
Background: Nalbuphine is a synthetic opioid with mixed agonist-antagonist action, when added as adjuvant to intrathecal bupivacaine acts on kappa receptors in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord producing analgesia. Aim: To evaluate the onset of sensory block, hemodynamic changes, duration and quality of analgesia, and adverse effects of different doses of nalbuphine with bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia. Materials and Methods: Randomized double blind study done on 100 patients undergoing lower abdominal and lower limb orthopedic surgeries under subarachnoid block. Patients were randomly allocated to four groups receiving either intrathecal 15 mg of bupivacaine + 0.5 mL normal saline alone or 15 mg of bupivacaine with either of nalbuphine 0.8, 1.6, and 2.5 mg + 0.5 mL normal saline. Results: The mean visual analogue scale score in group A is 4.08 ± 0.5 and in groups B, C, and D are 3.4 ± 0.4, 3.5 ± 0.5, and 3.5 ± 0.5, respectively. The duration of analgesia in group A is 190.4 ± 20.0 and in groups B, C, and D were 322.4 ± 31.1, 319 ± 39.8 and 317.8 ± 47.5. The quality of analgesia was good in 72%-76% and excellent in 16%-28% in groups B, C, and D and poor 28% to satisfactory 72% in group A. Conclusion: Addition of 0.8 mg of nalbuphine to 0.5% bupivacaine for subarachnoid block provides excellent analgesia with longer duration of action compared with 1.6 and 2.4 mg of nalbuphine.
Objective:
To evaluate the effects of two different spinal isobaric levobupivacaine doses on spinal anesthesia characteristics and to find the minimum effective dose for surgery in patients undergoing transurethral resection (TUR) surgery.
Materials and methods:
Fifty male patients undergoing TUR surgery were included in the study and were randomized into two equal groups: Group LB10 (n=25): 10 mg 0.5% isobaric levobupivacaine (2 ml) and Group LB15 (n=25): 15 mg 0.75% isobaric levobupivacaine (2 ml). Spinal anesthesia was administered via a 25G Quincke spinal needle through the L3-4 intervertebral space. Sensorial block levels were evaluated using the 'pin-prick test', and motor block levels were evaluated using the 'Bromage scale'. The sensorial and motor block characteristics of patients during intraoperative and postoperative periods and recovery time from spinal anesthesia were evaluated.
Results:
In three cases in the Group LB10, sensorial block did not reach the T10 level. Complete motor block (Bromage=3) did not occur in eight cases in the Group LB10 and in five cases in the Group LB15. The highest sensorial dermatomal level detected was higher in Group LB15. In Group LB15, sensorial block initial time and the time of complete motor block occurrence were significantly shorter than Group LB10. Hypotension was observed in one case in Group LB15. No significant difference between groups was detected in two segments of regression times: the time to S2 regression and complete sensorial block regression time. Complete motor block regression time was significantly longer in Group LB15 than in Group LB10 (p<0.01).
Conclusion:
Our findings showed that the minimum effective spinal isobaric levobupivacaine dose was 10 mg for TUR surgery.
Background
Adding intrathecal opioids to intrathecal local anesthetics to decrease their doses and provide hemodynamic stability are major goals during spinal anesthesia in cesarean section. Different opioids were used to select the one with the longest duration of analgesia and the least side effects. In this study, intrathecal nalbuphine was compared with intrathecal fentanyl as an adjuvant to hyperbaric bupivacaine in cesarean section.
Patients and methods
Sixty female patients of ASA grades I and II presented for elective cesarean deliveries with spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated to 2 equal groups; Group F: 30 patients received intrathecal injection of 2 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine plus 0.5 ml fentanyl (25 μg); Group N: 30 patients received intrathecal injection of 2 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine plus 0.5 ml nalbuphine (0.8 mg). The onset of sensory and complete motor blockade, time of sensory blockade, duration of analgesia and motor blockade, fetal Apgar score, visual analog scale score, oxygen saturation, adverse effects and hemodynamic parameters were recorded intra-operatively and up to 4 h post-operatively. The effective analgesic time was recorded.
Results
The onset of complete motor block was significantly more rapid in fentanyl group than in nalbuphine group. The duration of post-operative analgesia was more prolonged in nalbuphine group but the difference was insignificant. No significant difference was found between both groups as regards the duration of sensory block, motor block, duration of analgesia, fetal Apgar score, visual analog scale score, hemodynamic parameters and oxygen saturation. Adverse effects were less common in nalbuphine group but the difference was insignificant.
Conclusion
Either intrathecal nalbuphine 0.8 mg or intrathecal fentanyl 25 μg combined with 10 mg bupivacaine provides good intra-operative and early post-operative analgesia in cesarean section.
Opioids are being increasingly used these days as adjuvants to local anesthetics in spinal anesthesia.
The aim of this study is to compare the effects of adding sufentanil or fentanyl to low dose bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for endoscopic urological procedures.
Prospective, randomized, double-blind study.
A total of 90 elective endoscopic urological surgery patients, 40-80 years old, received spinal anesthesia with 7.5 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% (Group A) or by adding sufentanil 10 g (Group B) or fentanyl 25 g (Group C) to 5 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5%. These groups were compared in terms of the quality of spinal anesthesia as well as analgesia.
The onset of sensory and motor blockade was significantly rapid in Group A as compared with Groups B and C. The maximum upper level of sensory block was higher in Group A patients than Groups B and C patients. Quality of analgesia was significantly better and prolonged in sufentanil group as compared with other two groups. Motor block was more intense and prolonged in Group A as compared with Groups B and C patients. Request for post-operative analgesic was significantly delayed in Group B patients.
Spinal anesthesia for endoscopic urological procedures in elderly patients using low dose bupivacaine (5 mg) combined with 10 μg sufentanil is associated with a lower incidence of hemodynamic instability, better quality and prolonged duration as compared to that by adding 25 μg fentanyl.
It was aimed to compare the efficacy and adverse effects of levobupivacaine alone and in combination with fentanyl and sufentanil during transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) under spinal anesthesia.
In this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial, 60 patients undergoing elective TURP under spinal anesthesia were randomized into three groups. Ten milligrams of 0.5% levobupivacaine in Group-I, 7.5 mg 0.5% levobupivacaine combined with 25 μg fentanyl in Group-II and 7.5 mg 0.5% levobupivacaine with 2.5 μg sufentanil in Group-III were administered intrathecally.
The time for sensorial block to reach level T10 was 10.2 ± 2.0, 6.9 ± 1.7 and 7.0 ± 1.4 min in Group-I, II and III, respectively (P < 0.001). The maximum sensorial block level was T8 in all groups. The frequency of a complete motor block was higher in Group-I. The mean duration of motor block was shorter in Group-II and III than in Group-I (P < 0.001). There were no differences between groups regarding side effects (P > 0.05). The time for first analgesic request was shorter in Group-I than in the other two groups (P < 0.05). During the first postoperative 24-h period, 11 (58%) patients in Group-I, 9 (48%) patients in Group II and 9 (45%) patients in Group-III required an analgesic drug (P > 0.05).
This study showed that combining lower dose levobupivacaine with fentanyl and sufentanil provides faster onset of sensorial block, lower frequency and shorter duration of motor block, and longer analgesia time in TURP under spinal anesthesia.
Regional anaesthesia has seen the development of a new local anaesthetic: levobupivacaine. This review aims to outline the rationale underlying the development of levobupivacaine and to consider its place in modern regional anaesthesia.
Background:
Levobupivacaine use is progressively increased for intrathecal anesthesia in transurethral resections. The aim was to determine ED(50) and ED(95) of intrathecal isobaric levobupivacaine by addition of 25 mcg fentanyl for patients undergoing transurethral resections.
Methods:
A total of 100 patients undergoing transurethral resections with ASA I-III, were randomized to groups receiving intrathecal 0.5% isobaric levobupivacaine in doses of 6, 8, 10, 12 or 14 mg in equal volumes with 25 mcg intrathecal fentanyl addition. Sensorial block level was determined by pinprick and motor block by Bromage scale.
Results:
Mean onset time of sensorial block in 6 mg group was significantly longer than that of sensorial block in 10 mg, 12 mg and 14 mg groups (p<0.01), 8 mg was longer than 12 mg and 14 mg (p<0.01), and 10 mg onset time of sensorial block was significantly longer than 12 mg and 14 mg (p<0.01). Mean onset time of T10 sensory level in 6 mg group was significantly longer than mean onset time of T10 sensory level in 10 mg, 12 mg and 14 mg (p<0.01), the mean onset time of T10 sensory level in 8 mg group was also significantly longer than that of 12 mg, 14 mg groups (p<0.01). ED(50) and ED(95) of levobupivacaine coadministered with 25 mcg fentanyl were 7.32 mg and 10.88 mg, respectively.
Conclusion:
Levobupivacaine with opioid co-administration can be used in doses considerably lower than doses proposed for routine use as it is a safe drug depending on its hemodynamic effects, side effects.
The objective ofthe present study was double fold; to compare the characteristics of spinal blocks produced by 0.5% levobupivacaine with and without fentanyl in transurethral resection and to test the hypothesis that, fentanyl added to levobupivacaine, may be used as an alternative to pure levobupivacaine solution, in spinal anesthesia.
Forty males, aged >60 years, ASA I-III patients scheduled for elective transurethral resection were included in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. Following a spinal tap, intrathecal injection in Group L (n=20), 2.5 mL of 0.5% levobupivacaine and in Group LF (n=20), 2.2 mL of 0.5% levobupivacaine with fentanyl 15 microg (0.3 mL) was performed. The characteristics of sensory and motor block, hemodynamic data, side effects, patient and surgeon satisfaction were recorded. Patients were observed until the level of sensory block was S1 and the Bromage score was 0.
There were no significant differences between the two groups forpatient demographic, intraoperative, hemodynamic parameters, side effects and satisfaction. The highest level of sensory block was T9 in the Group L, and T6 in the Group LF (p = 0.001). Duration of motor block was shorter in Group LF than in Group L (291.00 +/- 81.08 min in Group L; 213.75 +/- 59.49 min in Group LF) (p = 0.001).
Both regimes are effective, and the addition of fentanyl to levobupivacaine may offers the advantage of shorter duration of motor block and may be used as an alternative to pure levobupivacaine solution in spinal anesthesia, for transurethral resections.
Intrathecal anesthesia is commonly used for lower limb surgery. Bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, and ropivacaine have all been used as intrathecal drugs, but their relative potency in this context has not been fully determined. In this study, we determined the median effective dose (ED(50)) of these three local anesthetics for intrathecal anesthesia in lower limb surgery and hence their relative potencies.
Seventy-five patients scheduled for lower limb surgery under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia were randomly allocated to one of three groups receiving intrathecal bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, or ropivacaine. The dose of local anesthetic was varied using up-down sequential allocation technique. The dose for the first patient in each group was 8 mg, and the dosing increment was set at 1 mg. Subsequent doses in each group were determined by the outcome in the previous patient using success or failure of the spinal anesthesia as the primary end point. A success was recorded if a bilateral T12 sensory block to cold was attained within 20 min after intrathecal injection, and the surgery proceeded successfully until at least 50 min after the intrathecal injection without supplementary epidural injection. The ED(50) was calculated using the method of Dixon and Massey.
The ED(50)s were 5.50 mg for bupivacaine (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.90-6.10 mg), 5.68 mg for levobupivacaine (95% CI: 4.92-6.44 mg), and 8.41 mg for ropivacaine (95% CI: 7.15-9.67 mg) in intrathecal anesthesia. The relative anesthetic potency ratios are 0.97 (95% CI: 0.81-1.17) for levobupivacaine/bupivacaine, 0.65 (95% CI: 0.54-0.80) for ropivacaine/bupivacaine, and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.55-0.84) for ropivacaine/levobupivacaine.
This study suggests that in intrathecal anesthesia for lower limb surgery, ropivacaine is less potent than levobupivacaine and bupivacaine, whereas the potency is similar between levobupivacaine and bupivacaine.
The 25 factors that conceivably could affect distribution of local anesthetic solutions can be divided into two groups. Those that have no clinically demonstrable significant effects include the following: patient weight; patient gender; the direction in which the bevel of a standard lumbar puncture needle is facing when the anesthetic solution is injected; turbulence (except under special circumstances) created either by alterations in rate of injection or by barbotage; diffusion of local anesthetic in CSF; the composition of CSF; CSF circulation; CSF pressure; concentration of local anesthetic in the solution injected; and the addition of vasoconstrictors to the local anesthetic solution. Factors that demonstrably affect distribution of local anesthetic solutions in CSF, though of widely varying clinical significance, include the following: patient age; patient height; anatomic configuration of the spinal column; the site of injection; the direction of the needle during injection; the volume of CSF; density of CSF; density and baricity of the anesthetic solution injected; the position of the patient (with hypo- or hyperbaric solutions); the dosage of local anesthetic; and the volume of anesthetic solution injected.
Nalbuphine (0.1-200 micrograms), unlike morphine (0.1-10 micrograms) administered intrathecally had no effect on the tail flick or hot plate response latencies. In contrast, both intrathecal nalbuphine and morphine inhibited, in a monotonic, dose dependent fashion, the writhing evoked by intraperitoneally administered acetic acid (ED50 = 38 nmol and 1.12 nmol, respectively.) The effects of intrathecal nalbuphine and morphine was antagonized by an equal dose of naloxone administered systemically. Co-intrathecal administration of morphine and nalbuphine revealed that a maximum inhibition of writhing could be obtained with low doses of either drug, while the effects of higher doses of either drug were attenuated as compared to the effects produced by the high dose of either drug alone. These data are consistent with the suggestion that nalbuphine exerts its agonistic effect through a mechanism that is pharmacologically distinct from that of morphine, and the likelihood of two populations of opioid receptors associated with the pain response evoked by thermal and visceral afferents, respectively is considered.
The development of new local anesthetics has not been an area of particularly active research for a number of years. However, as the use of regional anesthesia has expanded, additional anesthetic requirements and techniques have stimulated the search for newer drugs and ways of modifying existing ones. This article reviews some of the more recent developments in this field.
Unlabelled:
We sought, in this observer-blinded study, to determine the lethal dose for each of the local anesthetics levobupivacaine (L), racemic bupivacaine (B), and ropivacaine (R), and to compare their respective effects on the QRS interval of the precordial electrocardiograph after intracoronary injection. Anesthetized swine were instrumented with a left anterior descending artery coronary angiography catheter and injected with increasing doses of L, B, or R according to a randomized protocol. The doses administered were 0. 375, 0.75, 1.5, 3.0, and 4.0 mg, with further doses increasing in 1-mg increments until death occurred. Plotting the mean maximum QRS interval as a function of the log(10) mmol dose allowed the following cardiotoxicity potency ratios to be determined for a doubling of QRS duration-B:L:R = 2.1:1.4:1. The lethal doses in millimoles (median/range) for L and R were (0.028/0.024-0.031) and (0.032/0.013-0.032), respectively, and were significantly higher than for B (0.015/0.012-0.019) - (P < 0.05, n = 7 for all groups). The lethal dose did not differ between R and L. Thus, the cardiotoxicity potency ratios for the three anesthetics based on lethal dose were: 2.1:1.2:1. If the anesthetic potencies for B and L are similar, the latter should have less potential for cardiotoxicity in the clinical situation.
Implications:
Animal experiments have shown levobupivacaine and ropivacaine to be less cardiotoxic than racemic bupivacaine. This in vivo study, using a validated swine model, compared the relative direct cardiotoxicities of these three local anesthetics. The lethal dose did not differ between levobupivacaine and ropivacaine, but was lowest for racemic bupivacaine.
Unlabelled:
We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, multicenter study to compare the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of intrathecal nalbuphine, at three different doses, and intrathecal morphine for postoperative pain relief after cesarean deliveries. Ninety healthy patients at full term who were scheduled for elective cesarean delivery with spinal anesthesia were enrolled in the study. They received 10 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% with either morphine 0.2 mg (Group 1), nalbuphine 0.2 mg (Group 2), nalbuphine 0. 8 mg (Group 3), or nalbuphine 1.6 mg (Group 4). Only patients in Groups 1 and 2 reported pain during surgery. Postoperative analgesia lasted significantly longer in the morphine group, compared with the nalbuphine groups (P: < 0.0001). In the nalbuphine groups, postoperative analgesia lasted longest with the 0.8-mg dose. The additional increase to 1.6 mg did not increase efficacy. The incidence of pruritus was significantly higher in Group 1 (11 of 22), compared with Group 2 (0 of 22, P: < 0.0002), Group 3 (0 of 23, P: < 0.0001), and Group 4 (3 of 20, P: < 0.02). Postoperative nausea and vomiting were more frequent in Group 1 (5 of 22), compared with Group 2 (0 of 22, P: < 0.05), Group 3 (0 of 23, P: < 0.05), and Group 4 (3 of 23, not significant). There was no maternal or newborn respiratory depression. Neonatal conditions (Apgar scores and umbilical vein and artery blood gas values) were similar for all groups. This study suggests that intrathecal nalbuphine 0.8 mg provides good intraoperative and early postoperative analgesia without side effects. However, only morphine provides long-lasting analgesia.
Implications:
Small doses of intrathecal nalbuphine produce fewer adverse effects, such as pruritus and postoperative nausea and vomiting, compared with intrathecal morphine. This may allow earlier discharge of patients from the recovery room.
We evaluated the effect of 25 microg of fentanyl added to bupivacaine on sensory and motor block. By using a double-blinded study design, 80 men undergoing urologic surgery were randomized into the following four groups: Group I, bupivacaine 10 mg; Group II, bupivacaine 10 mg + fentanyl 25 microg; Group III, bupivacaine 7.5 mg + fentanyl 25 microg; Group IV, bupivacaine 5 mg + fentanyl 25 microg. The final volume of intrathecal injectate was adjusted to 2. 5 mL with sterile distilled water. Spinal anesthesia was administered with the 27-gauge Whitacre needle at the L2-3 interspace with the patient in the sitting position. Neural block was assessed by using pinprick and a modified Bromage scale. The degree of motor block was more profound in Group II compared with Group I at the end of operation. In Group IV, there was no motor block at the end of operation in any of the patients. The median level of the upper limit of the sensory block was higher than T(7) in all groups before the start of surgery. The addition of 25 microg of fentanyl to 5 mg of bupivacaine resulted in short-acting motor block. When 25 microg of fentanyl was added to 10 mg of bupivacaine, it increased the intensity and duration of motor block. Only 5 (6. 3%) of the patients needed supplemental analgesia during the operation. ¿abs¿
We evaluated the effect of low-dose bupivacaine plus fentanyl administered intrathecally in elderly patients undergoing transurethral prostatectomy. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Group F received plain bupivacaine 4 mg with 25 micro g of fentanyl and sterile water to a total of 1.5 ml, and Group B received only 0.5% plain bupivacaine 7.5 mg for spinal anaesthesia. Sensory block was adequate for surgery in all patients. The mean level of motor block was higher and the duration of motor block was longer in Group B (p < 0.0001). Hypotension and shivering were significantly more common in Group B (p < 0.05). The addition of fentanyl 25 micro g to plain bupivacaine 4 mg provides adequate analgesia for transurethral prostatectomy with fewer side-effects in elderly patients when compared with the conventional dose of bupivacaine.
Implications:
Small dose lidocaine spinal anesthesia and 3% 2-chloroprocaine epidural anesthesia provided comparable discharge times for outpatient knee arthroscopy. The incidence of transient neurologic symptoms with small-dose lidocaine spinal anesthesia was 12%.
Racemic bupivacaine is the most common local anaesthetic used intrathecally. This prospective, randomized, double-blind study compared the clinical efficacy and motor block of 0.5% levobupivacaine with 0.5% racemic bupivacaine in spinal anaesthesia for urological surgery. The surgery required an upper level of sensory block of at least the tenth thoracic dermatome. Fifty patients were recruited (levobupivacaine group n=24; bupivacaine group n=26). Spinal anaesthesia was achieved with 2.6 ml of study solution injected in the subarachnoid space at the lumbar 3/4 interspace. One patient from the levobupivacaine group was excluded due to technical failure. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the quality of sensory and motor block or in haemodynamic change. Anaesthesia was adequate and patient satisfaction good in all cases.
We conclude that 0.5% levobupivacaine can be used as an alternative to 0.5% racemic bupivacaine in spinal anaesthesia for surgery when a sensory block to at least T10 is required.
Levobupivacaine, a new local anaesthetic, has been recently introduced into clinical practice because of its lower toxic effects for heart and central nervous system. It has been already investigated in epidural and loco-regional techniques, but more has to be known regarding its characteristics in spinal anaesthesia. The aim of our study was to compare clinical and anaesthetic features of levobupivacaine and racemic bupivacaine when intrathecally administered in 60 patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgical procedures.
Three ml of glucose-free levobupivacaine 0.5% (group L) or 3 ml of isobaric bupivacaine 0.5% (group B) were administered in 30 patients each. Sensory and motor blockades were evaluated by the pinprick test and a modified Bromage score, respectively. Vital parameters, postoperative VAS and rescue analgesia were recorded as well.
No statistically significant differences between groups were observed either in anaesthetic potencies or postoperative pain. Either heart rate or mean arterial pressure slightly decreased in both groups, with no preoperative significant differences. Nevertheless, spinal puncture was accompanied by severe hypotension and bradycardia in 2 patients of group B. In both cases, hemodynamics were promptly and successfully treated, with no sequelae.
In conclusion, levobupivacaine results a valid alternative to racemic bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia, the latter remaining a cheap and effective local anaesthetic yet. Notwithstanding the complete absence of any significant hemodynamic complications in the patients of group L, further and larger studies are needed in order to assess if levobupivacaine is preferable to bupivacaine for minimizing the possible cardiovascular impact of spinal anaesthesia.
Bupivacaine is available as a racemic mixture of dextrobupivacaine and levobupivacaine. Many studies show that dextrobupivacaine has a greater inherent central nervous system and cardiovascular toxicity than levobupivacaine. The objective of the present study was to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of isobaric solution of levobupivacaine compared with hyperbaric solution of racemic bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia.
The authors studied 70 patients undergoing elective transurethral endoscopic surgery who received either 0.5% isobaric levobupivacaine (n = 35) or 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (n = 35) intrathecally, in a randomized, double blind study.
The two groups were similar in terms of time to block suitable for surgery, duration of sensory block, time to two segments regression, time to T12 regression, time to onset and offset of motor block, verbal numeric pain scores at the start of the operation and adverse events.
The present study indicated that 2.5 ml of 0.5% isobaric levobupivacaine and 0.5% hyperbaric of racemic bupivacaine show equally effective potencies for spinal anesthesia, regard to both the onset time and duration of sensory blockade.
The use of bupivacaine and fentanyl for spinal anaesthesia for urological surgery
- K S Kuusniemi
- K K Pihlajamaki
- M T Pitkanen
- Kuusniemi
5% with nalbuphine in spinal anaesthesia for transurethreal resection of prostate surgery
- O M Rehab
- S I Shreif
- Y M Amr
- Rehab
Intrathecal fentanyl with small-dose dilute bupivacaine: better anesthesia without prolonging recovery
- B Ben-David
- Solomon E Levin
- Ben-David
Sufentanil added to hyperbaric bupivacaine for subarachnoid block in ceaserean section
- B F Ade
- F S Braga
- G M Poterio
Ade BF, Braga FS, Poterio GM, et al. Sufentanil added to
hyperbaric bupivacaine for subarachnoid block in
ceaserean section. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2003;20(8):631-5.
Advantages of intrathecal nalbuphine compared with intrathecalmorphine, after cesarean delivery: an evaluation of postoperative analgesia and adverse effects
- X Culebras
- G Gaggero
- J Zatloukal
- Culebras
5% hyperbaric bupivacaine for orthopedic surgery of lower limbs under subarachnoid block: a comparative evaluation
- K Gupta
- B Rastogi
- P K Gupta
- Gupta
Anesthesia and the renal and genitourinary systems. Miller's Anaesthesia. 7 th edn
- V Malhotra
- V Sudheendra
- J O'hara
Malhotra V, Sudheendra V, O'Hara J, et al. Anesthesia and
the renal and genitourinary systems. Miller's
Anaesthesia. 7 th edn. Elsevier/ Churchill Livingstone
2010.
- G A Mcleod
- Burke D Levobupivacaine
McLeod GA, Burke D. Levobupivacaine. Anesthesia
2001;56(4):331-41.
Intrathecal fentanyl with small-dose dilute bupivacaine: better J Evolution Med Dent Sci / eISSN -2278-4802
- B Ben-David
- Solomon E Levin
Ben-David B, Solomon E, Levin H, et al. Intrathecal
fentanyl with small-dose dilute bupivacaine: better
J Evolution Med Dent Sci / eISSN -2278-4802, pISSN -2278-4748 / Vol. 10 / Issue 38 / Sept. 20, 2021
Page 3386
anesthesia without prolonging recovery. Anesth Analg
1997;85(3):560-5.