| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
Department of Anesthesiology, Frederiksberg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, dusanka.zaric{at}fh.hosp.dk (Zaric, Christiansen) Department of Anesthesiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT (Pace) Department of Anesthesiology, Chiang Mai University, Thailand (Punjasawadwong)
In Response:
We appreciate the comments of Dr. Lambert about the implications for patient safety of the transient neurologic symptoms (TNS) that sometimes develop after spinal anesthesia with lidocaine. There is much speculation as to the nature of TNS but nothing has been substantiated. A systematic review is observational research of published randomized controlled trials; in the 14 included studies, all patients recovered from TNS without permanent sequelae. A future confirmation that TNS after intrathecal lidocaine is associated with nerve root inflammation, as noted in a recent case report (1), would be alarming.
We thank Dr. Lambert for noting a misstatement concerning lidocaine dose and TNS. It appears that the risk of TNS does not depend on the concentration of lidocaine (2,3). A subgroup analysis within our meta-analysis can provide consistent evidence for this lack of a concentration effect. The relative risk with 95% confidence interval for studies comparing 2% lidocaine and other local anesthetics is 8.51 (3.11, 23.32); for studies comparing 5% lidocaine to other local anesthetics the relative risk is 6.34 (3.05, 13.17). These relative risks are not different.
It would be unfortunate if a reader misinterpreted our results as stating, "TNS is really no big deal." Compared with other local anesthetics (except mepivacaine), the relative risk for TNS is about sevenfold higher for lidocaine. We restate our conclusion as follows: "This increased risk of TNS must be weighted against the benefit of rapid, short-acting anesthesia..." (4)
References
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|