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]


     

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 ISI 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
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kawamata, Y. T.
Right arrow Articles by Namiki, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kawamata, Y. T.
Right arrow Articles by Namiki, A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Regional Anesthesia
Right arrow Pharmacology

Anesth Analg 2003;96:881-884
© 2003 International Anesthesia Research Society

REGIONAL ANESTHESIA

A Comparison of Hyperbaric 1% and 3% Solutions of Small-Dose Lidocaine in Spinal Anesthesia

Yurie Tohdoh Kawamata, MD, Koki Nishikawa, MD, Tomoyuki Kawamata, MD, Keiichi Omote, MD, Motohiko Igarashi, MD, Masanori Yamauchi, MD, Koichi Sato, MD, Masayasu Nakayama, MD, and Akiyoshi Namiki, MD

Department of Anesthesiology, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Japan

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Tomoyuki Kawamata, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, Sapporo Medical University, School of Medicine, S-1, W-16, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, 060–8543, Japan. Address e-mail to kawamata{at}sapmed.ac.jp

We examined whether the concentration of hyperbaric lidocaine affected the regression of motor block when the dose of lidocaine was kept constant at 30 mg. We also examined the spread, duration, and regression of sensory block. Sixty-five patients (ASA physical status I or II), scheduled for elective perineum or lower limb surgery, were enrolled in this study. Patients received spinal anesthesia with 1 mL of 3% lidocaine or 3 mL of 1% lidocaine. Adequate level of block was obtained for surgery in 63 of 65 patients. Whereas the administration of 3 mL of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine solution produced a level of sensory block similar to that produced by the administration of 1 mL of hyperbaric 3% lidocaine solution in spinal anesthesia, the administration of 3 mL of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine solution resulted in shorter times to full motor recovery and to urination and produced less motor block compared with 1 mL of hyperbaric 3% lidocaine solution. Two patients receiving 1% lidocaine and four patients receiving 3% lidocaine required IV ephedrine because of hypotension. Our results showed the clinical advantages of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine spinal anesthesia compared with hyperbaric 3% lidocaine spinal anesthesia for surgery of short duration.

IMPLICATIONS: When the dose of lidocaine was kept constant at 30 mg, hyperbaric 1% lidocaine solution resulted in shorter times for recovery from motor block and to urination than did hyperbaric 3% lidocaine solution. Levels of sensory block were similar. Therefore, the more dilute lidocaine for spinal anesthesia may be suitable for day-care surgery and short duration surgery.






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 © 2003 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.