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; 106:1322-1325
© 2008 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e318165e012
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 PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mowafi, H. A.
Right arrow Articles by Al-Ghamdi, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mowafi, H. A.
Right arrow Articles by Al-Ghamdi, A.

ANALGESIA

The Effects of Intravenous Granisetron on the Sensory and Motor Blockade Produced by Intrathecal Bupivacaine

Hany A. Mowafi, MBBch, MSc, MD, Samer A. Arab, MD, Salah A. Ismail, MBBch, MSc, MD, and AbdulMohsin Al-Ghamdi, MBBch, MD

From the Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Hany A. Mowafi, Anesthesiology Department, King Fahd University Hospital, PO Box 40081, Al-Khobar 31952, Saudi Arabia. Address e-mail to hany_mowafi{at}hotmail.com.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that pretreatment with IV granisetron would affect the sensory and motor components of spinal blockade through 5-HT3 receptor blockade.

METHODS: Forty unpremedicated patients scheduled for elective knee arthroscopy under spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive either IV granisetron 1 mg (granisetron group) or saline (control group) on arrival to the operating room. Two and half milliliters (12.5 mg) of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% was injected intrathecally. Regression of the sensory level and motor blockade, and the hemodynamic changes were evaluated.

RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in the maximum cephalad spread of sensory block or the time to maximum sensory level. Compared with the control group, patients who received granisetron had significantly faster sensory regression times by two segments (69.8 ± 25.5 min vs 88.0 ± 27.8 min, P = 0.036), to segment T12 (105.5 ± 25.1 min vs 127.0 ± 30.5 min, P = 0.019) and to segment S1 (162.8 ± 41.1 min vs 189.8 ± 39.8 min, P = 0.041), respectively. In contrast, motor block did not differ between the two groups at any study time. No significant differences were detected between the two study groups in the hemodynamic data.

CONCLUSION: We concluded that IV granisetron facilitated a faster recovery of sensory block after bupivacaine subarachnoid anesthesia.






Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins 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 HighWire Press
Copyright © 2008 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.