scholarly journals A Comparison of the Effect of Fractionated and Bolus Dose Injection on Spinal Anesthesia for Lower Limb Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pooya Derakhshan ◽  
Seyed Hamid Reza Faiz ◽  
Poupak Rahimzadeh ◽  
Reza Salehi ◽  
Ghazaleh Khaef
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Bolus Dose ◽  
Hemodynamic Changes ◽  
Anesthesia Group ◽  
Group A ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia Group ◽  
Group B ◽  
Dose Injection

Background: In previous clinical trials and a small number of studies, the fractional injection of anesthetics led to reduced physiological complications and hemodynamic stability and increased duration of anesthesia. Objectives: The present study intended to compare the effect of fractionated and bolus dose injection of bupivacaine and fentanyl on spinal anesthesia for lower limb fracture surgeries. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind clinical trial, 70 patients with lower limb fractures were divided into groups of bolus spinal anesthesia (Group A) and fractional spinal anesthesia (Group B). Group A received a bolus dose of 25 μg fentanyl plus 15 mg bupivacaine 0.5% intrathecally at a rate of 0.2 mL/sec and were laid down in supine position after 45 seconds. In Group B, a half dose of the mixture, i.e., 25 μg fentanyl plus 15 mg bupivacaine 0.5% mixture, was injected intrathecally, and then, the other half was injected after 45 seconds while the needle was still in place. Afterward, the patients were immediately laid down in the supine position. Hemodynamic changes in the sensory and motor blockage parameters were recorded in both groups. Results: The motor blockage onset time was shorter in Group B compared to Group A (P = 0.026). Moreover, the sensory blockage duration was longer (P = 0.035), and the highest level of sensory blockage was lower (P = 0.008) in Group B compared to Group A. Conclusions: Fractional spinal anesthesia led to a longer duration and more favorable levels of sensory blockage compared to the bolus method. In addition, hemodynamic changes and complications occurred less frequently following this procedure.

scholarly journals A Comparison of Oral Gabapentin and Oral Pregabalin as Preemptive Analgesia for Orthopedic Surgery Under Spinal Anaesthesia

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-78
Author(s):  
Neena Jain ◽  
Rahul Bankapur ◽  
Preeti Lamba ◽  
saurav Singh
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Spinal Anaesthesia ◽  
Orthopedic Surgery ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Analgesic Efficacy ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Background and Aims: Gabapentin and pregabalin, by decreasing noxious stimulus induced excitatory neurotransmitter release at central nervous system, may attenuate central sensitization and eventually decrease development of postoperative pain. We evaluated preemptive analgesic efficacy of single dose of oral gabapentin 600 mg and pregabalin 75mg for postoperative pain in patients undergoing lower limb orthopedic surgery under spinal anesthesia. Material and methods: A prospective, randomized, double blind study was conducted on 70 patients aged between 18 to 60 years with ASA grade 1 and 2 posted for lower limb surgeries under spinal anaesthesia. Patients were allocated into Group A and Group B receiving oral gabapentin(600mg) and oral pregabalin (75mg) respectively 1.5 hours before surgery. Primary objective was assessing duration and quality of analgesia by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score at 2,4,6,8,10,12,16,20 and 24 hours.Secondary objective was to assess total dose of rescue analgesic in first 24 hours, perioperative hemodynamic change and various side effects. Statistical Analysis used: Categorical data was compared using Chi- square test. Quantitative parametric data was analysed using unpaired student t-test. P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Mean duration of analgesia in Group A (10.53 ± 2.686 hours) was longer than Group B (7.943±3.199hr) (P = 0.0006).Mean number of analgesic dosesrequired in first 24 hourswere less in Group A (1.429 ± 0.5021) ascompared to Group B (1.771±0.6897) (P = 0.0202).All patients remained hemodynamically stable with no significant side effects noted in either group. Conclusion: We conclude that preemptive analgesic efficacy of oral gabapentin 600mg is better in comparison to oral pregabalin 75 mg for patients posted for lower limb orthopedic surgeries under spinal anesthesia.

scholarly journals Isobaric levobupivacaine a better and safer substitute for spinal anaesthesia in patients undergoing prolonged lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 3111
Author(s):  
Wasimul Hoda ◽  
Abhishek Kumar ◽  
Priodarshi Roychoudhury
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Spinal Anaesthesia ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Motor Block ◽  
Sensory Block ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Sensory Blockade ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Background: Bupivacaine being the drug of choice for spinal anaesthesia is associated with serious cardiac toxicity. Levobupivacaine and ropivacaine, both being the two S enantiomers of bupivacaine can be a safer alternatives with better cardiovascular safety. Hence, the clinical efficacy of both were assessed and compared in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia.Methods: A prospective randomized controlled double blind study was done in 68 adult posted for elective lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries under spinal anesthesia. They were randomized into 2 groups. About 3ml isobaric levobupivacaine 0.5% (15mg) was given in group A and 3ml isobaric ropivacaine 0.5% (15mg) was given in group B. Onset, duration of sensory and motor blocks, time for maximum sensory and motor block, time for 2 segment sensory regression and haemodynamic parameters were recorded and analyzed.Results: All patients achieved a sensory block of T10 dermatome. Onset of sensory blockade at T10 was similar in both groups, group A (5.71±1.31min) and group B (5.94±1.72min). Time from injection to two dermatomal regression was 129.68±15.54min in group A and 111.38±22.35min in group B. Onset of Bromage score of 1 in group A was 4.68±1.27min and in group B was 6.44±1.64min. The mean duration of motor and complete motor block was prolonged in group A patients (197.74±18.51min, 168.82±17.90 min) as compared to group B (131.88±20.41min, 106.71±10.85min).Conclusions: Isobaric levobupivacaine was found to be a better and safer substitute for spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing prolonged lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries.

scholarly journals SUCCESS OF PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY: COMPARING SPINAL ANESTHESIA WITH GENERAL ANESTHESIA

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ari Astram ◽  
Ponco Birowo ◽  
Nur Rasyid ◽  
P Pryambodho ◽  
C Susilo
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Average Length ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
General Anesthesia Group ◽  
Anesthesia Group ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Surgery Duration

Objective: The purpose of this study compared the outcome of PCNL under general and spinal anesthesia for the outcome. Material & Methods: PCNL had been performed from 2000 until 2011 with total 760 PCNL divided into 220 PCNL using general anesthesia (Group A) and the remaining 540 PCNL using spinal anesthesia (Group B) The data of both groups were evaluated with Chi square test, and Mann-Whitney test. Result: Stone free rate in Group A was 71.37% similar with Group B 72.97% (p > 0.05). Spinal anesthesia was used more often in patient who had previous surgery 65.5% compared with general anesthesia 36.82% (p < 0.05). The average surgery duration in Group A was longer than group B (77.10 ± 35.59 minutes vs 68.42 ± 30.55 minutes) (p < 0.05). The average length of hospital stay in Group B was shorter than Group A (3.90 ± 2.72 days vs 5.47 ± 4.25 days) (p < 0.05). There was no difference between Group A and Group B in complication and the needs of tranfusion. Conclusion: PCNL under spinal anesthsia was feasible and safe even better in the shorter surgery duration and the length of hospital stay.

scholarly journals Clinical Comparative Study of Effect of Two Different Doses of Phenylephrine on Spinal Induced Hypotension during Cesarean Section

2021 ◽  
pp. 482-489
Author(s):  
S. Hiruthick ◽  
K. V. L. Sanjana
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Cesarean Section ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Prospective Observational Study ◽  
Bolus Dose ◽  
Systolic Pressure ◽  
Induced Hypotension ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Different Doses

Background and Aims: During Cesarean section, hypotension occurs in the most of parturients, following spinal anesthesia. This prospective observational study was undertaken to determine the efficacy of two different Bolus Doses of Phenylephrine for Prevention of Spinal-Induced Hypotension during Cesarean Section. Materials and Methods: A total of 120 parturients undergoing cesarean section were divided into two groups of group A and group B with sixty in each group. Group A received phenylephrine 75 mcg IV bolus, while Group B received phenylephrine 100 mcg IV bolus, immediately after giving spinal anesthesia. For the next 20 minutes, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DSP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR) were recorded every 2 minutes, and APGAR scores at 1 and 5 minutes were recorded. Results: There was no difference between the two groups in terms of preventing hypotension, with 16.6% in Group A and 16.6% in Group B. In the first 2–6 minutes, however, the rise in systolic pressure in Group B was higher than in Group A. Group B (46.66 %) had a higher rate of bradycardia than Group A (25 %). Conclusion: Both phenylephrine dosages were equally effective in preventing hypotension following spinal anesthesia. However, Prophylactic bolus dose of phenylephrine 75 mcg was found to be effective for the management of spinal-induced hypotension and should be preferred over 100 mcg which causes significant bradycardia and reactive hypertension.

scholarly journals Haemodynamic Effects and Complications of Unilateral Spinal versus Standard Spinal Anesthesia in Elderly with Low Ejection Fraction Undergone Lower-Limb Surgery

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-24
Author(s):  
Md Mushfiqur Rahman ◽  
Md Mahbubul Hasan Munir ◽  
Raihanuddin ◽  
Shafiul Alam Shaheen ◽  
Md Abdus Salam Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Spinal Anaesthesia ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Motor Block ◽  
Sympathetic Block ◽  
Hyperbaric Bupivacaine ◽  
Unilateral Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Lower Limb Surgery ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Background: Cardiovascular system may be profoundly affected by spinal anaesthesia due to unavoidable sympathetic blockade which is more prominent in elderly.A restricted sympathetic block during spinal anesthesia may minimize hemodynamic changes.Objective: To assess whether a unilateral spinal anaesthesia using 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine will restrict the sympathetic block to avoid the undesired cardio vascular effects.Materials and method: In this prospective study 60 ASA Ill and IV patients aged between 60-90 years undergoing unilateral lower limb surgery were included. Patients were divided into two groups. In group-A, dural puncture was performed with the patient in the lateral decubitus position with 1.5 mL of hyperbaric bupivacaine. In group-B, it was performed with the patient in a seated position using 1.5 mL hyperbaric bupivacaine. Each patient was then placed in supine position. The speed of injection was 1 mL/30s. Patients were placed in the lateral position with operated side down and kept in this position for 10 minutes. Motor and sensory levels were assessed, and haemodynamic alterations were monitored just after block, 5, 10, 15 and 30 minutes of spinal anaesthesia.Results: The demographic data were found similar in both groups. The time to the onset of the sensory and motor block was significantly shorter in group-B. The duration of motor and sensory block was significantly shorter in group-A. Haemodynamically all the parameters revealed better out come in unilateral spinal anesthesia. The incidence of complications (nausea, headache, and hypotension) was also lower in group A.Conclusion: When unilateral spinal anesthesia was performed using a low-dose, low-volume and low-flow injection technique, it provides adequate sensory-motor block and helps to achieve stable hemodynamic parameters during surgery on a lower limb. Furthermore, this technique avoids unnecessary paralysis on the non-operated side.Delta Med Col J. Jan 2017 5(1): 20-24

scholarly journals SPINAL ANESTHESIA

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (02) ◽  
pp. 161-165
Author(s):  
Hamid Raza ◽  
Bashir Ahmed ◽  
Kamlaish Kamlaish ◽  
Saqib Basr ◽  
Ahmed Ali
Keyword(s):  
Cesarean Section ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Motor Blockade ◽  
Lower Segment ◽  
Hemodynamic Changes ◽  
Hyperbaric Bupivacaine ◽  
Sensory Blockade ◽  
Lower Segment Cesarean Section ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Objective: The purpose of the study is to compare and assess the sensoryand motor block along with the associated hemodynamic changes that occur in the patientpopulation operated for a lower segment cesarean section (LSCS), when they are given 0.5%hyperbaric bupivacaine versus 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine as used for spinal anesthesia.Study Design: Prospective double blind randomized trial. Period: 6 months duration fromApril 2014 to September 2014. Setting: A tertiary care hospital in the city of Karachi, Pakistan.Method: The study population consisted of 60 patients belonging to the ASA 1 and ASA 2category, who underwent a lower segment cesarean section, and comparative analysis ofthe efficacy and associated hemodynamic changes of hyperbaric with isobaric bupivacaine.The patient population was segmented into two groups both groups containing 30 patients,group A receiving hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% as 2.5ml ( 12.5mg dose ) and the secondgroup designated as, group B receiving isobaric bupivacaine 0.5% as 2.5ml ( 12.5mg dose)intrathecally. The resultant sensory and motor blockade was determined using pin prick andbromage scale respectively. Results: There was a significant difference found among the twogroups under study, when compared at 3min interval regarding the sensory blockade. The levelof T6 block was reached in 33.33% (n=10) patients belonging to group A and 56.66% (n= 17)patients in group B. It was observed that there was no significant change among the two groupsat 5min interval regarding sensory and motor blockade respectively. The immediate sensoryblockade with isobaric bupivacaine in group B produced greater decrease in the systolic andmean arterial blood pressure when contrasted with hyperbaric bupivacaine in group A at 5mininterval, but after time interval of 45min there was no statistically significant change observed.Conclusions: According to our study the effects of isobaric bupivacaine were more significantlypredictable; hence have a higher efficacy, when contrasted against hyperbaric bupivacainein lower section cesarean section spinal anesthesia. Quick sensory blockade with isobaricbupivacaine was associated with more decrease in blood pressures when contrasted with thehyperbaric bupivacaine, but this result is not statistically significant.

Comparison of Endoscopic Versus Percutaneous Approach (Blind) to Control the Obturator Jerk in Patients Undergoing Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumors Under Spinal Anesthesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 120-126
Author(s):  
Alamgir Md ◽  
Karim Km Monwarul ◽  
Nandy SP ◽  
Md Monwar Ul Haque ◽  
Sakhawat Mahmud Khan
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Transurethral Resection ◽  
Bladder Tumor ◽  
Complete Resection ◽  
Satisfaction Level ◽  
Bladder Tumors ◽  
Percutaneous Approach ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the endoscopic versus percutaneous approach (blind) to control the obturator jerk in patients undergoing transurethral resection of bladder tumors under spinal anesthesia. Materials and methods: A prospective observational study was performed in Department of Urology, Chittagong Medical College, Chittagong and some Private Hospitals (Ltd.) in Chittagong city during the period from January 2016 to June 2016. Total 100 patients were grouped into two, on alternate basis. Fifty(50) patients in group- A conducted with endoscopic infiltration with 20ml of injection 2% lignocaine at the bladder tumor base and another 50 patients in group-B, conducted with blind percutaneous technique with same drug and volume ( 20ml inj.2% lignocaine) to control obturator jerk. Severity of obturator jerk in both procedure, percentage of complete resection, ONB procedure related time, ONB procedure related complications and surgeon’s satisfaction level were recorded and compared between two approaches. Chi-square analysis was performed to compare the ease of approach and outcome of the two techniques. A value of P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The mean age of the patients were 59.44+7.681. In group-A, 50 patients were given inj. 2% lignocaine endoscopically at the bladder tumor base to control obturator jerk. Twenty five patients (50%) had no jerk, 20 patients(40%) developed mild jerk and 5 patients (10%) developed moderate jerk and no patients developed severe jerk. Second attempt was taken in moderate jerk patients (5 patients) and succeeded in 3(6%) patients. So, in this group, complete resection of bladder tumor was possible in 96%. In group B, complete resection of bladder tumor was possible in 84%. Statistical analysis was done and result is significant in case of endoscopic procedure to control obturator jerk(p<0.05). ONB Procedure related time was <20 mins. in 32(64%) patients in group-A and 45 (90%) patients in group- B. 20 mins. or more time was required for 18 (36%) patients in group-A and 5 (10%) patients in group-B. Statistical analysis was done and result is significant in percutaneous (blind) technique (p<0.05). ONB procedure related complications in group-A and Group –B were noted. Statistical analysis was done and result is insignificant (p>0.05). Surgeons satisfaction level were recorded on the basis of obturator jerk block and complete resection and which was statistically significant in favour of endoscopy group (p<0.05). Conclusion: It is concluded that endoscopic injection of 2% lignocaine into the bladder tumor base is better in case of jerk elimination and complete resection than blind percutaneous approach. Though, ONB procedure related time was significantly less in percutaneous group. Bangladesh Journal of Urology, Vol. 21, No. 2, July 2018 p.120-126

Comparison of the effects of Dexamethasone and Ondansetron on the Reduction of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting following Cesarean Section under Spinal Anesthesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arash karimi ◽  
Jahanbakhsh Nejadi ◽  
Mahnaz Shamseh ◽  
Nooshin Ronasi ◽  
Mehdi Birjandi
Keyword(s):  
Cesarean Section ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Postoperative Nausea ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Elective Cesarean Section ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication associated with the use of anesthesia. Several antiemetics are used to reduce the incidence and severity of PONV. The aim of this study is to investigate the role of dexamethasone and ondansetron to treat PONV in patients undergoing cesarean section (c-section) under spinal anesthesia. Methods: This double-blind clinical trial study was performed on patients who were referred to the operating room of Haji Karim Asali Hospital of Khorramabad for elective cesarean section in 2016-17. Upon meeting the inclusion criteria, patients were allotted into two groups (n=60). Group A received 8mg of dexamethasone and group B received 4mg of ondansetron after spinal anesthesia. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) questionnaire and Depression-Anxiety-Stress Scale (DASS) questionnaire was used for the analysis. Patients with mild to moderate stress, anxiety, and depression were included in the study. Data were analyzed using SPSS 16 software. Results: There was no difference in the demographic data of the two groups. The mean severity of nausea in group A was significantly higher than in group B. The frequency of vomiting in group A was 20 times higher than group B, which was found to be statistically significant, p = 0.018. Concerning the type of delivery with the frequency of nausea, the results showed that the frequency of nausea in group A was 3.24 times higher than group B, however, this difference was not statistically significant, p = 0.106. Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, ondansetron had a significant effect on the alleviation of postoperative nausea and vomiting, as compared to dexamethasone in c-section surgical candidates.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document