JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Anesth Analg 2008; 106:1008-1011
© 2008 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31816174c3
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Demiraran, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Tokmak, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Demiraran, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Tokmak, A.


REGIONAL ANESTHESIA

Vasoconstriction and Analgesic Efficacy of Locally Infiltrated Levobupivacaine for Nasal Surgery

Yavuz Demiraran, MD*, Ozcan Ozturk, MD{dagger}, Ender Guclu, MD{dagger}, Abdulkadir Iskender, MD*, Mehmet Hakan Ergin, MD*, and Abdurahman Tokmak, MD{dagger}

From the Departments of *Anesthesiology, and {dagger}Otorhinolaryngology, University of Duzce, Duzce Faculty of Medicine, Duzce, Turkey.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Yavuz Demiraran, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Duzce, Duzce, Turkey. Address e-mail to demiryvz{at}yahoo.com.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we compared the use of preincisional lidocaine 2% with epinephrine (LA) and levobupivacaine 0.25% plain (LB) for postoperative analgesia and vasoconstriction in patients undergoing nasal surgery.

METHODS: Sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive preincisional local infiltration under general anesthesia. Group LB received levobupivacaine 0.25%, and group LA received epinephrine plus lidocaine 2% (add volume injected). Intraoperative hemodynamic changes, pre- and postoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit values were recorded. Visual analog scale values 30 min and 1, 2, 8, 12, and 24 h postoperatively and the need for rescue analgesic treatment in the first 24 h of all patients was recorded.

RESULTS: At 30 min and 1, 2, 8, and 12 h postoperatively, visual analog scale values were lower in group LB than in group LA (P < 0.0001, P = 0.002, P = 0.023, P < 0.0001, and P = 0.011, respectively). The analgesic requirement was significantly lower in group LB when compared with that in group LA (P = 0.038). Group LB had significant differences between preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit values (P = 0.014 and 0.025). Group LA had significant differences between preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit values (P = 0.031 and 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that postoperative analgesia in nasal surgery with local infiltration of levobupivacaine was significantly more potent and longer lasting than that achieved by lidocaine plus epinephrine.







Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2008 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 2008 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.