Literature DB >> 28717545

Low dose lignocaine + butorphanol vs. low dose bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia in day care urological surgeries: a prospective randomized control trial.

Shahil Rameshbhai Khant1, Rajeev Chaudhari1, Rishikesh Arun Kore1, Shirish Bhagwat1, Ranjan Purushottam Jakhalekar1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: A local anaesthetic with fast onset, short and reliable duration of anaesthesia may be preferable for day care urological surgeries. Low dose lignocaine is believed to act faster and to have a shorter duration of action than low dose bupivacaine. Use of lignocaine for spinal anesthesia is discouraged now a days because of rare reports of transient neurological symptoms. The purpose of this study was to compare effectiveness and safety of low dose of lignocaine + butorphanol against low dose of bupivacaine for day care urological surgeries.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective randomized control trial was conducted between December 2012 to November 2015. After taking ethical committe approval and patient consent, total 990 patients were randomized in two groups. Group A received 0.5 mL of 5% lignocaine (25 mg) + 0.3 mL butorphanol (0.3 mg) and group B received 1 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine (5 mg) for spinal anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia was given at the L3-L4 interspace with the patient in the sitting or lateral position. The criteria for evaluation were time till onset of sensory and motor block, duration of sensory and motor block, time till ambulation, time till fit for discharge and any complications.
RESULTS: Both the groups were comparable in terms of age, male to female ratio, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade and duration surgery. Group A and Group B were statistically different in terms of mean time till onset of sensory block (120±22 sec and 274±36 sec), onset of motor block (228±34 sec and 372±41 sec), duration of sensory block (100±21 min and 230±28 min), duration of motor block (60±15 min and 152±23 min), time till ambulation (138±24 min and 292±48 min), time till fit for discharge (256±35 min and 428±46 min) respectively (<0.0001). Nausea, vomitings, hypotension, bradycarida and pruritis were less in group A compared to group B (<0.01). None of patient in any group had temporary or permanent neurological defecit.
CONCLUSION: Spinal anaesthesia is an effective as well as a safe modality to anaesthetize the patient for day care urological procedures. This study shows lignocaine + butorphanol is preferable over bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia for day care urological procedures. It also favours day care surgery at remote areas with lesser medical facilities. It helps to minimize requirement of medical and paramedical staff, thus further extending scope of day care urological surgeries.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bupivacaine; day care urological surgeries; lignocaine + butorphanol; low dose drugs; spinal anesthesia

Year:  2017        PMID: 28717545      PMCID: PMC5503440          DOI: 10.5152/tud.2017.14367

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Turk J Urol        ISSN: 2149-3235


  16 in total

Review 1.  Ureteropyeloscopic treatment of ureteral and intrarenal calculi.

Authors:  M Grasso
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 2.241

Review 2.  Ureteroscopy without routine balloon dilation: an outcome assessment.

Authors:  M L Stoller; J S Wolf; R Hofmann; B Marc
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Diagnostic performance of low-dose CT for the detection of urolithiasis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tilo Niemann; Thilo Kollmann; Georg Bongartz
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Optimal treatment for distal ureteral calculi: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy.

Authors:  C P Chang; S H Huang; H L Tai; B F Wang; M Y Yen; K H Huang; H J Jiang; J Lin
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.942

5.  Follow-up functional radiographic studies are not mandatory for all patients after ureteroscopy.

Authors:  Charles E Bugg; Rizk El-Galley; Phillip J Kenney; John R Burns
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Is routine radiological surveillance mandatory after uncomplicated ureteroscopic stone removal?

Authors:  Mert Ali Karadag; Ahmet Tefekli; Fatih Altunrende; Abdulkadir Tepeler; Murat Baykal; Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  Routine postoperative imaging is important after ureteroscopic stone manipulation.

Authors:  Alon Z Weizer; Brian K Auge; Ari D Silverstein; Fernando C Delvecchio; Ricardo M Brizuela; Philipp Dahm; Paul K Pietrow; Bertram R Lewis; David M Albala; Glenn M Preminger
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 8.  Evaluation of the patient with flank pain and possible ureteral calculus.

Authors:  Eric P Tamm; Paul M Silverman; William P Shuman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-06-20       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients.

Authors:  Jean de la Rosette; John Denstedt; Petrisor Geavlete; Francis Keeley; Tadashi Matsuda; Margaret Pearle; Glenn Preminger; Olivier Traxer
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2013-12-17       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 10.  EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis.

Authors:  Christian Türk; Aleš Petřík; Kemal Sarica; Christian Seitz; Andreas Skolarikos; Michael Straub; Thomas Knoll
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 20.096

View more
  1 in total

1.  Lidocaine vs. Other Local Anesthetics in the Development of Transient Neurologic Symptoms (TNS) Following Spinal Anesthesia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Chang-Hoon Koo; Hyun-Jung Shin; Sung-Hee Han; Jung-Hee Ryu
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-02-11       Impact factor: 4.241

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.