JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Casati, A. Articles by Barbagallo, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Casati, A. Articles by Barbagallo, A. Related Collections Regional Anesthesia Pharmacology

---

ANALGESIA

Spinal Anesthesia with Lidocaine or Preservative-Free 2-Chlorprocaine for Outpatient Knee Arthroscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Comparison

Andrea Casati, MD^*, Guido Fanelli, MD^*, Giorgio Danelli, MD^*, Marco Berti, MD^*, Daniela Ghisi, MD^*, Matteo Brivio, MD^*, Marta Putzu, MD^*, and Alessia Barbagallo, MD

*From the University of Parma - Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Therapy, Ospedale Maggiore di Parma - Via Gramsci 14, 43100 Parma, Italy and University of Messina - Department of Anesthesiology.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Andrea Casati, Department of Anesthesia and Pain Treatment, University of Parma, Via Gramsci 14, 43100 Parma. Address e-mail to andrea.casati{at}unipr.it.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study we tested the hypothesis that 50 mg of 1% preservative-free 2-chloroprocaine would provide a faster resolution of spinal block than the same dose of 1% plain lidocaine.

METHODS: After IV midazolam premedication (0.03 mg/kg), 30 ASA physical status I–II outpatients undergoing knee arthroscopy were randomly allocated to receive 50 mg of either 1% plain lidocaine (n = 15) or 1% preservative-free plain chloroprocaine (n = 15). A blinded observer recorded the evolution of sensory (loss of pinprick sensation) and motor (modified Bromage scale) block until complete regression, as well as times to unassisted ambulation and voiding. A telephone call follow-up was performed 24 h and 7 days after surgery.

RESULTS: Two chloroprocaine patients (13%) and one lidocaine patient (7%) required fentanyl supplementation (100 µg IV) (P = 0.99) intraoperatively, but no patient required general anesthesia to complete surgery. Median (range) times for recovery of sensory and motor function, and unassisted ambulation were faster with 2-chloroprocaine [95 (68–170) min; 60 (45–120) min; and 103 (70–191) min] than lidocaine [120 (80–175) min; 100 (60–140) min; and 152 (100–185) min] (P = 0.019, P = 0.0005, and P = 0.003, respectively). No differences in first voiding were reported between chloroprocaine [180 (100–354) min] and lidocaine patients [190 (148–340) min] (P = 0.191). Transient neurological symptoms were reported in five lidocaine patients (33%) but no chloroprocaine patients (0%) (P = 0.042).

CONCLUSION: Intrathecal injection of 50 mg of preservative-free 2-chloroprocaine 1% resulted in quicker recovery of sensory/motor function, and unassisted ambulation, and fewer incidences of transient neurologic symptoms than the same dose of 1% lidocaine.

Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999