| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||


Departments of
*Anaesthesiology and
Biostatistics, University of Turku,
Department of Anaesthesiology of Turku City Hospital, Turku, Finland, and
§Department of Anaesthesiology, University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Kristiina S. Kuusniemi, MD, Department of Anaesthesiology, Kiinamyllynkatu 4-8, 20520 Turku, Finland.
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Implications: Bupivacaine 5 mg with 25 µg of fentanyl for spinal anesthesia resulted in short-acting motor block. On the contrary, the addition of 25 µg of fentanyl to 10 mg of bupivacaine resulted in an increase in the motor block intensity and duration.
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Lidocaine has been a popular anesthetic for urologic procedures. When hyperbaric 2% or 5% lidocaine is used for spinal anesthesia, patients recover rapidly. However, several editorials have questioned the use of lidocaine for spinal anesthesia because of the frequency of transient neurologic symptoms (13). These observations generated interest in an alternative local anesthetic solution. Some investigators have examined small doses of spinal bupivacaine to be used in surgical procedures lasting less than an hour (4,5).
Lipophilic opioids (e.g., fentanyl and sufentanil) are increasingly being administered intrathecally as adjuncts to local anesthetics. They enhance spinal anesthesia without prolonging motor recovery and discharge time (6,7). This study was designed to examine whether adding 25 µg of fentanyl to bupivacaine would intensify sensory and motor block without prolonging recovery time.
| Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
Patients were monitored with electrocardiography, automated oscillotonometry, and pulse oximetry. Hypotension (systolic arterial pressure <90 mm Hg or >50 mm Hg decrease from the baseline) was treated with 3-mg increments of etilefrine IV. Bradycardia (heart rate <50 bpm or decreased more than 20% from the initial value) was treated with IV atropine 0.5 mg. If the patient expressed a need for additional analgesia or exhibited an obvious need, alfentanil 0.5 mg was given IV. Respiratory depression was defined as a respiratory rate of
8 breaths/min and/or oxygen saturation of
85% in room air. Other adverse effects, including pruritus, nausea, and vomiting, were recorded. In the majority of cases, a urinary catheter was inserted after the procedure.
The level of sensory block, defined as the loss of sharp sensation by using a pinprick test, was recorded bilaterally at the midclavicular line. Motor block in the lower limbs was assessed with reference to specific myotomes. It was done by testing the power of a specific joint movement of both lower limbs that were regarded as equivalent to the following five myotomes: L2 hip flexion, L3 knee extension, L4 ankle dorsiflexion, L5 great toe dorsiflexion, and S1 ankle plantar flexion. Complete motor block or absent power at a myotome and intensity of motor block was recorded as myotome score, which was the number of myotomes blocked from 0 to maximal 10 (14). The total score was calculated for each side, the maximum score being 5 points for one side, 10 points in total. Measurement of respiratory rate and testing of pinprick analgesia and motor block were performed at 10, 20, and 30 min, at the end of operation, 2 h from the injection, and thereafter at 30-min intervals until the motor block had completely recovered.
The patients were discharged from the recovery room when resolution of motor block was complete. The discharge criteria for the ward were stable vital signs, minimal nausea or vomiting, no severe pain or bleeding, and the motor block completely recovered. In the period after operation, the patients were interviewed regarding their opinion of the anesthetic procedure. Also, the surgeon was asked to estimate the operating conditions on a scale of good, satisfactory, and poor. In addition to testing the sensory block by pinprick, the patients were asked to report to the investigator the time when they had normal sensation in the buttocks and feet (subjective feeling of total recovery).
For postoperative pain, oxycodone 0.1 mg/kg was injected subcutaneously, if needed. The interval from the injection of spinal anesthesia to the request of first dose of analgesic and the total dose of oxycodone required in 24 h were calculated. On the third postoperative day, the patients were interviewed again regarding their opinion of the anesthetic procedure, headache or backache, and whether they would have the same anesthesia next time for a similar operation. The interview was done by telephone if the patient had been discharged from the hospital. Headache was classified as postdural puncture headache (PDPH) if it was aggravated by erect or sitting position, relieved on lying flat, mainly occipital or frontal, and increased on coughing, sneezing, or straining. Transient neurological symptoms (TNS) were defined as pain and/or dysesthesia in the back, buttocks, and legs or pain radiating to the lower extremities after initial recovery from spinal anesthesia, and resolved within 72 h.
The statistical analysis was conducted mainly with nonparametric methods. First, the overall differences among the four groups were tested with Kruskal-Wallis test. If there were significant differences among the four groups, the analysis was continued with post hoc comparisons of differences between pairs of groups by using Mann-Whitneys U-test. Multiple comparison correction was performed with Bonferroni correction. The comparison of four groups in demographic data and the duration of surgery was done with parametric one-way analysis of variance. P values <0.05 were interpreted as statistically significant. The computations were performed with SAS System for Windows, release 6.12/1996 (SAS, Cary, NC).
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The motor block assessments are presented in Figure 1. In Group IV, in which the dose of bupivacaine was the smallest (5 mg), there was no motor block in any of the patients at the end of operation. In this group, there were also six patients (30%) who had no motor block after the injection; yet none of the patients needed supplementation of analgesia during the operation and the surgeons were satisfied with the intensity of the motor block. There were statistically significant differences between groups in the motor block (P < 0.001). Group II resulted in the longest duration of the motor block (P < 0.001) and Group IV the shortest duration (P < 0.001). Between Groups I and III there was no statistically significant difference in the duration of the motor block. The degree of motor block was more intense in Group II compared with Group I at the end of operation. A complete motor block (altogether 10 myotomes blocked, from L2 to S1 at each side) was found in 16 of 20 patients in Group I and 19 of 20 patients in Group II during the anesthesia.
|
|
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Several investigators have evaluated intrathecal fentanyl with smaller doses of spinal local anesthetics. Liu et al. (15) found that fentanyl 20 µg in combination with spinal lidocaine (50 mg) prolonged sensory anesthesia without prolonging recovery of motor function or time to micturition. Sensory block was prolonged in both thoracic and lumbar dermatomes with the addition of fentanyl. Furthermore, Ben-David et al. (6) found that a small dose of fentanyl (10 µg) added to spinal anesthesia with a small dose of dilute bupivacaine (5 mg) in ambulatory patients undergoing knee arthroscopies intensified and increased the sensory blockade without increasing the intensity of motor block or prolonging recovery of micturition or street fitness.
We added fentanyl to bupivacaine to determine its effect on anesthesia quality, motor block, and sensory block. In this study, the addition of fentanyl (25 µg) to 10 mg of bupivacaine intensified the motor block. A statistical difference was found between Groups I and II in the motor block intensity between time points from two to three hours after the injection. In addition, the motor block seems to be more intense toward the resolution of the entire motor block. With the difference in the mean values and standard deviations of motor block intensity in our study, the sample size should have been approximately 100 in both groups to show a significant difference from three hours forward. Compared with all the other groups, the duration of the motor block was longest in Group II (P < 0.001). One explanation of this observation could be that both the fentanyl and the bupivacaine doses were larger than in the study by Ben-David et al (6).
When large doses of local anesthetics are used, the sensory and motor blocks develop rapidly as a result of an overdosage in relation to the minimum concentration required to block the various nerve fiber types. Even though the motor block was not complete with 5 or 7.5 mg of bupivacaine and fentanyl addition, more intense motor blocks were not requested by the surgeons. However, the shortest and least invasive procedures were performed on the patients with the least dense blocks, which may in part explain the lack of additional need for analgesia. It should also be pointed out that an incomplete motor block might be contraindicated in some urologic procedures in which movements may result in a bladder perforation.
It can be assumed that the recovery and mobilization of the patient could be faster if the motor block was less intense. In the study by Vaghadia et al. (16), a small-dose hypobaric lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia had advantages over conventional-dose hyperbaric lidocaine, including less hypotension and faster motor and sensory recovery. In our study, the duration of motor block was prolonged in Group II compared with Group I. The dose of bupivacaine was 10 mg in both groups, but in Group II, there was the 25-µg dose of fentanyl added to the anesthetic solution and the duration of subjective block was the longest. This observation is in accordance with earlier studies in which duration of the block is found to be dose-related when using either lidocaine (17) or bupivacaine (18).
Posture, when plain bupivacaine is injected intrathecally, influences the spread of sensory anesthesia (13,19). All patients in the current study had the anesthetic solution injected into the subarachnoid space at the L2-3 interspace while in the seated position. The sitting position was maintained for two minutes, thereby enhancing the spread of the block into the upper thoracic dermatomes. The median level of the upper limit of the sensory block reached T7 in all four study groups. Furthermore, the duration of the block is a function of total milligram dose and the extent of spread (20).
Pruritus is a common complication when intrathecal opioids are used (21). Liu et al. (15) found that the addition of 20 µg of fentanyl intrathecally led to pruritus in all patients. In the current study, pruritus was also the most common adverse effect, occurring in 22.5% of all patients. It was well tolerated; none of the patients needed treatment. In the study by Vaghadia et al. (16), pruritus was also found to be of mild to moderate intensity.
The administration of intrathecal opioids may provide benefits in augmenting intraoperative anesthesia, but carries a risk of respiratory depression (22). Fentanyl is much more lipid-soluble than morphine and hence does not tend to migrate intrathecally to the fourth ventricle in sufficient concentrations to cause respiratory depression. Varassi et al. (23) demonstrated that the subarachnoid administration of 25 µg of fentanyl during spinal anesthesia in nonpremedicated elderly men did not alter respiratory rate, end-tidal tension of CO2, minute ventilation, respiratory drive, respiratory timing, or the ventilatory response to CO2. On the contrary, 50 µg of subarachnoid fentanyl could cause an early respiratory depression in elderly patients.
In conclusion, the addition of fentanyl 25 µg to bupivacaine 5 mg resulted in short-lasting motor block but the same level of sensory analgesia as larger doses of bupivacaine (7.510 mg) with or without fentanyl. When fentanyl 25 µg was added to bupivacaine 10 mg it increased the duration and intensity of motor block.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
E. Zohar, Y. Noga, U. Rislick, I. Leibovitch, and B. Fredman Intrathecal Anesthesia for Elderly Patients Undergoing Short Transurethral Procedures: A Dose-Finding Study Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2007; 104(3): 552 - 554. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. C. S. Law, K. K. Lam, and M. G. Irwin The Effect of Right Versus Left Lateral Decubitus Positions on Induction of Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2003; 97(6): 1795 - 1799. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Ganapathy Walking spinals: a myth or reality?/La rachianesthesie ambulatoire : un mythe ou une realite? Can J Anesth, March 1, 2001; 48(3): 222 - 224. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|