PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “ANESTHESIA, SPINAL”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed1997

[The use of continuous spinal anesthesia and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia in operations on lower extremity vessels].

Continuous spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric solution of 1% lidocaine and 0.375% bupivacaine and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia with solutions of 2% lidocaine and 0.375% bupivacaine by using in-run anesthesia ensure adequate anesthesia and persistent hemodynamic parameters during operations on lower extremity vessels. These procedures can be used in elderly high-risk patients.

Anesthesia, Epidural↗
PubMed2000

Unilateral bupivacaine spinal anesthesia for outpatient knee arthroscopy. Italian Study Group on Unilateral Spinal Anesthesia.

PURPOSE: To compare unilateral and conventional bilateral bupivacaine spinal block in outpatients undergoing knee arthroscopy. METHODS: One hundred healthy, premedicated patients randomly received conventional bilateral (n = 50) or unilateral (n = 50) spinal anesthesia with 8 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5%. A lateral decubitus position after spinal injection was maintained in unilateral group for 15 min. Times from spinal injection to readiness for surgery, block resolution, and home discharge were recorded. RESULTS: Three patients in each group were excluded due to failed block. Readiness for surgery required 13 min (5 - 25 min) with bilateral and 16 min (15 - 30) with unilateral spinal block (P = 0.0005). Sensory and motor blocks on the operated limb were T9 (T12 - T2) with a Bromage score 0/1/2/3: 0/2/0/45 in the unilateral group and T7 (T12 - T1) with Bromage score 0/1/2/3: 4/1/6/36 with bilateral block(P = 0.026 and P = 0.016, respectively). Vasopressor was required only in five bilateral patients (P = 0.02). Two segment regression of sensory level and home discharge required 81+/-25 min and 281+/-83 min with bilateral block, and 99+/-28 min and 264+/-95 min with unilateral block (P = 0.002 and P = 0.90, respectively). CONCLUSION: Seeking unilateral distribution of spinal anesthesia provided more profound and longer lasting block in the operated limb, less cardiovascular effects, and similar home discharge compared with bilateral spinal anesthesia, with only a slight delay in preparation time.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

Continuous spinal anesthesia: where do spinal catheters go?

The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence of technical problems encountered when performing continuous spinal anesthesia and the influence of catheter tip position on block height following injection of a hypobaric spinal anesthetic. Twenty-nine elderly patients undergoing hip surgery were studied. Lumbar puncture was performed with an 18-gauge Tuohy needle at the L3-4 (or L2-3) interspace. Threading was defined as easy if a 20-gauge catheter was inserted on the first try, 3-4 cm cephalad. Threading was considered difficult if cephalad insertion of the catheter was impossible on the first try; the Tuohy needle was then rotated with its bevel facing caudally, the catheter inserted for 1-2 mm, and the needle turned back cephalad together with the catheter partially threaded, for further cephalad insertion up to 4 cm. All patients received 7.5 mg of hypobaric bupivacaine or tetracaine in the lateral decubitus position and sensory levels were determined by pinprick. After surgery all catheters were injected with radiographic dye and examined by radiograph for verification of position. The determination of the level of lumbar puncture was falsely judged in 59% of cases, the puncture being performed 1 or 2 spaces higher than assumed. Although threading difficulties were encountered in 4/28 cases, there was a 100% success rate in catheter insertion. One catheter displacement into the epidural space was noted. Twenty of twenty-eight catheters took a cephalad direction, 6 remained coiled in a horizontal position, and 2 took a caudal direction.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Aged↗
PubMed1992

[Effectiveness of combined spinal anesthesia].

Combined spinal anesthesia with the use of hyperbaric solution of lignocaine at an average dose of (69.4 +/- 1.4) mg and morphine hydrochloride at a dose of 0.3 mg was used in 50 patients with II-IV degree anesthesiologic risk during one-stage appendectomy. Effective intraoperative anesthesia was achieved in (96.2 +/- 2.5) % of cases. Duration of postoperative analgesia was (26.8 +/- 1.1) h. Suppression of breathing, hyperalgesia on termination of the effect of a local anesthetic were not noted. In (50.1 +/- 1.7) % of the patients, intraoperative hypotension was revealed. After the operation, nausea was noted in (20 +/- 11.5) % of these patients, vomiting--in (6.0 +/- 2.3) %, itch at the site of puncture--in (22.0 +/- 10.4) %, shiver--in (2.0 +/- 1.4) %.

Adenoma↗
PubMed1994

Local anesthesia is superior to spinal anesthesia for anorectal surgical procedures.

In this prospective study we compared local with spinal anesthesia for anorectal surgical procedures with regard to pain control, recovery time before unassisted ambulation, incidence of postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and cost effectiveness in 80 consecutive patients. Patients were allocated in two groups: group 1 (n = 52) received local anesthesia, and group 2 (n = 28) had spinal anesthesia. There were no intraoperative complications related to the anesthetic technique, and there was no difference between groups in the number of doses of narcotics required to control postoperative pain (1.2 +/- 1.5 vs 1.8 +/- 1.7 in group 1 and 2 respectively, P > 0.05). Recovery time before unassisted ambulation was significantly longer in group 2 (139 +/- 96 minutes in group 2 vs 82 +/- 62 minutes in group 1, P < 0.05). There were 21/52 complications in group 1 in contrast to 21/28 in group 2, (P < 0.05). There was no difference between groups in the postoperative incidence of nausea, vomiting, headache, weakness, and constipation; however, the incidence of postoperative urinary retention was significantly higher in group 2 (5/52 in group 1 vs 9/28 in group 2, P < 0.05). As a result of urinary retention, more patients in group 2 required overnight hospitalization (12/52 in group 1 vs 21/28 in group 2, P < 0.05). Patients in group 2 required 36 hospital days in contrast to 21 days for patients in group 1, P < 0.05. The difference in hospital days resulted in $18,000 greater cost for patients in group 2.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Does spinal anesthesia result in a more complete sympathetic block than that from epidural anesthesia?

BACKGROUND: Spinal and epidural injection of local anesthetics are used to produce sympathetic block to diagnose and treat certain chronic pain syndromes. It is not clear whether either form of regional anesthesia produces a complete sympathetic block. Spinal anesthesia using tetracaine has been reported to produce a decrease in plasma catecholamine concentrations. This has not been demonstrated for epidural anesthesia in humans with level of anesthesia below C8. One possible explanation is that spinal anesthesia results in a more complete sympathetic block than epidural anesthesia. To examine this question, a cross-over study was performed in young, healthy volunteers. METHODS: Ten subjects underwent both spinal and epidural anesthesia with lidocaine (plain) on the same day with complete recovery between blocks. By random assignment, spinal anesthesia and epidural anesthesia were induced via lumbar injection. Before and 30 min after local anesthetic injection, a cold pressor test (CPT) was performed. Blood was obtained to determine epinephrine and norepinephrine plasma concentrations at four stages: (1) 20 min after placing peripheral catheters, (2) at the end of a 2-min CPT (before conduction block), (3) 30 min after injection of epidural or spinal lidocaine, and (4) at the end of a second CPT (during anesthesia). Mean arterial pressure, heart rate, noninvasive cardiac index, and analgesia to pin-prick were monitored. RESULTS: Neither spinal nor epidural anesthesia changed baseline resting values of catecholamines or any hemodynamic variable, except heart rate, which was slightly decreased during spinal anesthesia. Median level of analgesia was T4 during spinal and T3 during epidural anesthesia. CPT before conduction block reliably increased heart rate, mean arterial pressure, cardiac index, epinephrine, and norepinephrine. Conduction block attenuated the increase in response to CPT only in mean arterial pressure (spinal and epidural) and cardiac index (spinal only). Neither technique blocked the increase in heart rate, norepinephrine, or epinephrine to CPT. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal anesthesia did not result in a more complete attenuation of the sympathetic response to a CPT than did epidural anesthesia. In response to the CPT, spinal anesthesia blocked the increase in cardiac index, and epidural anesthesia resulted in a decrease in total peripheral resistance compared to the pre-anesthesia state. The differences between the techniques are not significant and are of uncertain clinical implications.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

Thermoregulatory response thresholds during spinal anesthesia.

Reportedly, during spinal anesthesia, the shivering threshold is reduced approximately 1 degree C but the vasoconstriction threshold remains normal. Such divergence between the shivering and vasoconstriction thresholds is an unusual pattern of thermoregulatory impairment and suggests that the mechanisms of impairment during regional anesthesia may be especially complex. Accordingly, we sought to define the pattern of thermoregulatory impairment during spinal anesthesia by measuring response thresholds. Seven healthy women volunteered to participate on two study days. On one day, we evaluated thermoregulatory responses to hypothermia and hyperthermia during spinal anesthesia; on the other day, responses were evaluated without anesthesia. Upper body skin temperature was kept constant throughout the study. The volunteers were warmed via the lower body and cooled by central venous infusion of cold fluid. The core temperatures triggering a sweating rate of 40 g.m-2 x h-1, a finger flow of 0.1 mL/min, and a marked and sustained increase in oxygen consumption were considered the thermoregulatory thresholds for sweating, vasoconstriction, and shivering, respectively. Spinal anesthesia significantly decreased the thresholds for vasoconstriction and shivering, and the decrease in each was approximately 0.5 degree C. The range of temperatures not triggering thermoregulatory responses (those between sweating and vasoconstriction) was 0.9 +/- 0.6 degree C during spinal anesthesia. The synchronous decrease in the shivering and vasoconstriction thresholds during spinal anesthesia is consistent with thermoregulatory impairment resulting from altered afferent thermal input.

Adult↗
PubMed1992

[Comparative study of conventional spinal anesthesia and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia in gynecological surgery].

A prospective study was carried out to compare the qualities of spinal block with those of combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia (CSEA). It included 63 patients, ranked ASA 1 or 2, aged between 35 and 75 years, scheduled for gynaecological surgery due to last more than 2 hours, and randomly allocated to two groups. In the first group (n = 34), spinal anaesthesia was carried out with the patients sitting, in the L3-4 interspace, using 15 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine with 0.4 mg of adrenaline. In the second group (n = 29), a catheter was inserted in the epidural space through the L2-3 interspace, and spinal anaesthesia carried out as in the first group, using bupivacaine without adrenaline. Once the highest level of analgesia had been reached, aliquots of 0.5% plain bupivacaine were injected through the epidural catheter, until anaesthesia of T5 was obtained. In the spinal group, general anaesthesia was required in 3 cases, as anaesthesia only reached the T12 level in 2 cases, and as surgery lasted longer than the spinal in the third one. In the CSEA group, excellent analgesia was obtained in all patients. Sensory blockade lasted 308 +/- 48 min at the T12 level, versus 162 +/- 51 min in the spinal group (p < 0.025), and 361 +/- 51 min at the L2 level, versus 210 < 44 min in the other group (p < 0.025). "Topping up" was possible with the epidural catheter only, thus raising the level of sensory blockade, making it deeper, and increasing its duration. It avoids the use of general anaesthesia in case of failed spinal blockade.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Adult↗
PubMed1997

The efficacy of epinephrine test doses during spinal anesthesia in volunteers: implications for combined spinal-epidural anesthesia.

Epinephrine test doses may be administered during combined spinal-epidural anesthesia to determine intravascular placement of epidural catheters. This study was designed to determine systolic blood pressure (SBP) and heart rate (HR) responses to intravenous injection of epinephrine (15 microg) during spinal anesthesia. Twelve volunteers received three spinal anesthetics (lidocaine 100 mg, tetracaine 15 mg, and bupivacaine 15 mg) in a randomized, double blind, cross-over fashion. Epinephrine was administered prior to spinal anesthesia (control), 30 min after injection of spinal anesthesia, and at regression of sensory block to T-10. SBP was measured with a radial arterial catheter and HR with an electrocardiogram. Positive responses were defined as peak increase in SBP > or = 15 mm Hg or HR > or = 20 bpm after injection of epinephrine. Compared with control, peak SBP responses decreased by a mean of 12 mm Hg during spinal anesthesia with tetracaine and bupivacaine (P < 0.05). Peak HR responses decreased by 11 bpm during all three spinal anesthetics (P < 0.05). Incidences of detection of intravenous injection by positive SBP and HR responses ranged from 50% to 100% and were not significantly affected by spinal anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia reduces hemodynamic responses to intravenous epinephrine injection but is unlikely to reduce detection by positive SBP and HR criteria.

Adult↗
PubMed1985

Increased hepatic microsomal enzyme activity after surgery under halothane or spinal anesthesia.

Thirty-two fit patients scheduled for explorative arthrotomy of the knee were allocated randomly to either halothane/oxygen anesthesia or spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine 0.25 mg X kg-1. The day before and 1, 10, and 21 days after surgery, the aminopyrine breath test (ABT) was performed. The day before and 5, 10, and 21 days after surgery, the antipyrine clearance (APcl) was measured by the single sample saliva technique. The ABT as well as the APcl were increased significantly postoperatively (P less than 0.01). The day after surgery the ABT was increased by 13 +/- 21% in the spinal anesthesia group only, whereas a late increase by 14 +/- 31% was found in the halothane group. Five days after surgery, the APcl was increased by 36 +/- 45% in the spinal anesthesia group and by 21 +/- 28% in the halothane group. Both tests returned to base line values within 3 weeks postoperatively. In five volunteers following the same sampling scheme but receiving bupivacaine 0.25 mg X kg-1 im without surgery, no change in the ABT or the APcl was observed. The authors conclude that surgery may cause microsomal enzyme induction regardless of the anesthetic agent or technique used. The mechanism of this induction remains to be elucidated.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

[Conus cauda syndrome after spinal anesthesia].

Nowadays spinal cord anesthesia is, when indicated, a standardized and acknowledged medical procedure with a low complication rate. This is also true of neurological after-effects, like spinal paralysis, which are greatly feared, especially by medical laymen. In the following case report we describe a charge against anesthesiologists, who were accused of causing a conus-cauda syndrome after spinal cord anesthesia. Neurological examinations led to the diagnosis of an anesthesia-independent Tethered-Cord-Syndrome (TCS). In most cases the patients' fear can be alleviated by clear explanations about the method. The indication for the method of anesthesia is also based on a thorough body examination. If the documentation of the treatment is faulty or incomplete it can be used against the physician facing a lawsuit more easily. The aim of this case report is to remind anesthesiologists of the rare TCS and to emphasise again the importance of using standardized procedures and correct documentation, which can be very helpful for the physician facing unjustified claims in case of medical litigation.

Anesthesia, Spinal↗