| Literature DB >> 8989000 |
H Vaghadia1, D H McLeod, G W Mitchell, P M Merrick, C R Chilvers.
Abstract
A randomized, single-blind trial of two spinal anesthetic solutions for outpatient laparoscopy was conducted to compare intraoperative conditions and postoperative recovery. Thirty women (ASA physical status I and II) were assigned to one of two groups. Group I patients received a small-dose hypobaric solution of 1% lidocaine 25 mg made up to 3 mL by the addition of fentanyl 25 micrograms. Group II patients received a conventional-dose hyperbaric solution of 5% lidocaine 75 mg (in 7.5% dextrose) made up to 3 mL by the addition of 1.5 mL 10% dextrose. All patients received 500 mL of crystalloid preloading. Spinal anesthesia was performed at L2-3 or L3-4 with a 27-gauge Quincke point needle. Surgery commenced when the level of sensory anesthesia reached T-6. Intraoperative hypotension requiring treatment with ephedrine occurred in 54% of Group II patients but not in any Group I patients. Median (range) time for full motor recovery was 50 (0-95) min in Group I patients compared to 90 (50-120) min in Group II patients (P = 0.0005). Sensory recovery also occurred faster in Group I patients (100 +/- 22 min) compared with Group II patients (140 +/- 27 min, P = 0.0001). Postoperative headache occurred in 38% of all patients and 70% of these were postural in nature. Oral analgesia was the only treatment required. Spinal anesthesia did not result in a significant incidence of postoperative backache. On follow-up, 96% said they found spinal needle insertion acceptable, 93% found surgery comfortable, and 90% said they would request spinal anesthesia for laparoscopy in future. Overall, this study found spinal anesthesia for outpatient laparoscopy to have high patient acceptance and a comparable complication rate to other studies. The small-dose hypobaric lidocaine-fentanyl technique has advantages over conventional-dose hyperbaric lidocaine of no hypotension and faster recovery.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 1997 PMID: 8989000 DOI: 10.1097/00000539-199701000-00011
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Anesth Analg ISSN: 0003-2999 Impact factor: 5.108