Literature DB >> 20529983

A prospective, double-blinded, randomized, clinical trial comparing the efficacy of 40 mg and 60 mg hyperbaric 2% prilocaine versus 60 mg plain 2% prilocaine for intrathecal anesthesia in ambulatory surgery.

Claudio Camponovo1, Andrea Fanelli, Daniela Ghisi, Daniela Cristina, Guido Fanelli.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In this prospective, double-blind, randomized trial we compared 60 mg and 40 mg of 2% hyperbaric prilocaine with 60 mg of 2% plain prilocaine for spinal anesthesia in terms of sensory block onset in outpatients undergoing elective short-duration (<60 minutes) surgery under spinal anesthesia.
METHODS: Ninety patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive 1 of the 3 treatments. Times to sensory and motor block onsets, time to the maximum sensory block level, readiness for surgery, time to first urinary voiding, time to Bromage's score 0, and side effects were registered blindly. A blinded observer also questioned patients about transient neurological symptoms 24 hours and 7 days after spinal anesthesia.
RESULTS: Mean times to achieve a T10 level of sensory block were comparable in the 3 groups. However, 20% of patients receiving plain prilocaine did not achieve a T10 level. The 2 hyperbaric dosages (60 mg and 40 mg) showed significantly faster times to motor block onset (P = 0.0091, P = 0.0097), to the maximum sensory block level (P = 0.0297, P = 0.0183), to motor block offset (P = 0.0004, P < 0.0001), and to first urinary voiding (P = 0.0013, P = 0.0002, respectively) than did plain prilocaine. No major adverse reactions or transient neurological symptoms were observed in the study.
CONCLUSIONS: Spinal anesthesia with 60 mg or 40 mg of 2% hyperbaric prilocaine is comparable to 60 mg of 2% plain prilocaine in terms of onset of sensory block at T10. The hyperbaric solution showed faster times to motor block onset and shorter duration of surgical block, suggesting its superiority for the ambulatory setting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20529983     DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181e30bb8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesth Analg        ISSN: 0003-2999            Impact factor:   5.108


  9 in total

1.  A Comparative Study of Isobaric 1% Chloroprocaine With 0.5% Isobaric Bupivacaine for Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy Under Spinal Anaesthesia: A Prospective Randomised Study.

Authors:  Sugumar M; Atul K Singh; Amrita Rath; Abhinay Jayanthi
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-04-30

2.  [Use of 2 % hyperbaric prilocaine for spinal anesthesia : sensitivity analysis in outpatient surgery].

Authors:  D A Vagts; C H Bley; C W Mutz
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2013-03-29       Impact factor: 1.041

3.  Clinical characteristics of spinal levobupivacaine: hyperbaric compared with isobaric solution.

Authors:  Vimolluck Sanansilp; Travuth Trivate; Phakaporn Chompubai; Shusee Visalyaputra; Pattipa Suksopee; Ladda Permpolprasert; Benno von Bormann
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2012-04-24

4.  Spinal anaesthesia with hyperbaric prilocaine in day-case perianal surgery: randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Ozden Gorgoz Kaban; Dilek Yazicioglu; Taylan Akkaya; M Murat Sayin; Duray Seker; Haluk Gumus
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2014-10-14

Review 5.  Prilocaine hydrochloride 2% hyperbaric solution for intrathecal injection: a clinical review.

Authors:  Alberto Manassero; Andrea Fanelli
Journal:  Local Reg Anesth       Date:  2017-03-31

Review 6.  Spinal anaesthesia for ambulatory surgery.

Authors:  W Rattenberry; A Hertling; R Erskine
Journal:  BJA Educ       Date:  2019-08-13

7.  Tailored Surgery in Inguinal Hernia Repair. The Role of Subarachnoid Anesthesia: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Piergaspare Palumbo; Sofia Usai; Chiara Amatucci; Saverio Cerasari; Bruno Perotti; Luca Ruggeri; Roberto Cirocchi; Guglielmo Tellan
Journal:  Open Med (Wars)       Date:  2019-10-29

8.  Factors Determining the Choice of Spinal Versus General Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Ambulatory Surgery: Results of a Multicenter Observational Study.

Authors:  Xavier Capdevila; Christophe Aveline; Laurent Delaunay; Hervé Bouaziz; Paul Zetlaoui; Olivier Choquet; Laurent Jouffroy; Hélène Herman-Demars; Francis Bonnet
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2019-12-11       Impact factor: 3.845

9.  Determination of the ED95 of intrathecal hyperbaric prilocaine with sufentanil for scheduled cesarean delivery: a dose-finding study based on the continual reassessment method.

Authors:  P Goffard; Y Vercruysse; R Leloup; J-F Fils; S Chevret; Y Kapessidou
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2020-11-26       Impact factor: 2.217

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.