Tülün Öztürk1, Eralp Çevikkalp1, Funda Nizamoglu2, Alper Özbakkaloğlu2, İsmet Topcu1. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Celal Bayar University School of Medicine, Manisa, Turkey. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Celal Bayar University School of Medicine, Manisa, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of femoral block and unilateral spinal anaesthesia on analgesia, haemodynamics and mobilization during endovenous ablation in patients with lower extremity venous insufficiency. METHODS:Forty patients of ASA physical status I and II, with ages ranging between 30 and 45 years, and who were scheduled forendovenous laser ablation for varicose veins were prospectively enrolled in this study. Patients were randomized into a unilateral spinal anaesthesia group (group HS, n=20) or a femoral block group (group F, n=20). Group HS received 7.5-10 mg of heavy bupivacaine for unilateral spinal anaesthesia, while group F received 100 mg prilocaine for femoral block with ultrasound guidance. The level of motor blockage (Bromage score), visual pain score, mean heart rate and mean arterial pressures were recorded at postoperative 0, 1, 2, 3d and 6 h, respectively. RESULTS:Perioperative visual pain score values in both groups were <4. None of the groups required an additional analgesic agent. Bromage scores were significantly lower in group F than in group HS during the postoperative period (p<0.01). Motor function returned to normal in all patients at 3 h in group F and at 6 h in group HS. Postoperative mean heart rate and arterial pressure did not differ between the groups (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: In patients with lower extremity venous insufficiency who were undergoingendovenous laser ablation, an ultrasound-guided femoral block provided similar analgesia with that of unilateral spinal anaesthesia. In group F, the duration of anaesthesia and mobilization time was shorter.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of femoral block and unilateral spinal anaesthesia on analgesia, haemodynamics and mobilization during endovenous ablation in patients with lower extremity venous insufficiency. METHODS: Forty patients of ASA physical status I and II, with ages ranging between 30 and 45 years, and who were scheduled for endovenous laser ablation for varicose veins were prospectively enrolled in this study. Patients were randomized into a unilateral spinal anaesthesia group (group HS, n=20) or a femoral block group (group F, n=20). Group HS received 7.5-10 mg of heavy bupivacaine for unilateral spinal anaesthesia, while group F received 100 mg prilocaine for femoral block with ultrasound guidance. The level of motor blockage (Bromage score), visual pain score, mean heart rate and mean arterial pressures were recorded at postoperative 0, 1, 2, 3d and 6 h, respectively. RESULTS: Perioperative visual pain score values in both groups were <4. None of the groups required an additional analgesic agent. Bromage scores were significantly lower in group F than in group HS during the postoperative period (p<0.01). Motor function returned to normal in all patients at 3 h in group F and at 6 h in group HS. Postoperative mean heart rate and arterial pressure did not differ between the groups (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: In patients with lower extremity venous insufficiency who were undergoing endovenous laser ablation, an ultrasound-guided femoral block provided similar analgesia with that of unilateral spinal anaesthesia. In group F, the duration of anaesthesia and mobilization time was shorter.