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 Abstract Freely available
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lennox, P. H.
Right arrow Articles by Mitchell, G. W. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lennox, P. H.
Right arrow Articles by Mitchell, G. W. E.
Related Collections
Right arrow Ambulatory
Right arrow Pharmacology
Anesth Analg 2002;94:346-350
© 2002 International Anesthesia Research Society

AMBULATORY ANESTHESIA

Small-Dose Selective Spinal Anesthesia for Short-Duration Outpatient Laparoscopy: Recovery Characteristics Compared with Desflurane Anesthesia

Pamela H. Lennox, MB, BAO, BCh, MRCPI, FCARCSI*, Himat Vaghadia, BSc, MBBS, MHSc, FRCPC, FFARCS*{dagger}, Cynthia Henderson, MD, FRCPC*, Lynn Martin, MD, FRCPC*, and G. W. E. Mitchell, MB, BCh, FRCOG, FRCS (Ed), FRCSC{ddagger}

Departments of *Anesthesia, {dagger}Health Care and Epidemiology, and {ddagger}Gynecology, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC, Canada

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Himat Vaghadia, Department of Anesthesia, JPP 2449, Vancouver General Hospital, 855 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, Canada V5Z 1M9. Address e-mail to hvaghadi{at}vanhosp.bc.ca


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the recovery characteristics of selective spinal anesthesia (SSA) and desflurane anesthesia (DES) in outpatient gynecological laparoscopy. Twenty ASA physical status I patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy were randomized to receive either SSA with lidocaine 10 mg + sufentanil 10 µg or general anesthesia with DES and N2O. Intraoperative conditions, recovery times, postanesthesia recovery scores, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. Intraoperative conditions were comparable in both groups. All patients in the SSA group were awake and oriented at the end of surgery, whereas patients in the DES group required 7 ± 2 min for extubation and orientation. SSA patients had a significantly shorter time to straight leg raising (3 ± 1 min versus 9 ± 4 min; P < 0.0001) and to ambulation (3 ± 0.9 min versus 59 ± 16 min; P < 0.0001) compared with the DES group. SSA patients had significantly less postoperative pain than DES patients (P < 0.05). We concluded that SSA was an effec-tive alternative to DES for outpatient gynecological laparoscopy.

IMPLICATIONS: This study compared the use of a desflurane general anesthetic to a small-dose spinal anesthetic in ambulatory gynecological laparoscopy. Using the spinal technique, patients can walk from the operating room table to a stretcher on completion of surgery. Their recovery time was similar to that of the desflurane group.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Selective spinal anesthesia (SSA) uses minimal doses of conventional intrathecal anesthetic to obtain anesthesia of specific nerve roots and selective modalities (1). It allows the preservation of motor function and maintains the integrity of the dorsal columns while providing selective pinprick anesthesia (2). SSA has been confirmed as a reliable anesthetic technique that offers a satisfactory alternative to general anesthesia (GA) for outpatient gynecological laparoscopy (1–5). SSA has been developed and modified to attain selective short-duration spinal anesthesia, which facilitates ambulation at the end of the surgical procedure.

Conventional dose spinal anesthesia is associated with a longer recovery time compared with propofol anesthesia (6). SSA can compete with newer anesthetics such as propofol in terms of recovery and discharge times (1). However, SSA has not been compared with newer volatile anesthetics such as desflurane (DES). We hypothesized that using SSA would provide recovery characteristics comparable to those obtained with short-acting volatile anesthetics such as DES. The purpose of this study was to compare recovery after SSA versus DES in outpatients undergoing short duration gynecological laparoscopy.


   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
The study was conducted as a single-center, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. University ethics approval was obtained from the Clinical Screening Committee for Research and Others Studies Involving Human Subjects of the University of British Columbia, along with written informed consent from each patient recruited. Exclusion criteria included allergy to any of the intended anesthetics, infection at the site of needle insertion for spinal anesthesia, coagulopathy, and neurological or neuromuscular disease.

Twenty ASA grade I women scheduled for an outpatient gynecological laparoscopic procedure and amenable to either spinal or GA were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomized into two groups (DES and SSA) by means of computer-generated table of random numbers blocked after every 10. In the preoperative area, an IV cannula was inserted and an infusion of normal saline was commenced. No sedative premedication was given. Patients received acetaminophen 975 mg orally 30 min preoperatively. Each patient walked into the OR, and the routine monitors were then applied.

Anesthesia was administered as described below. All patients received a diclofenac sodium 100 mg suppository and perphenazine 1 mg IV at the end of the procedure as prophylactic analgesic and antiemetic respectively. All surgical sites were infiltrated with bupivacaine 0.25% to reduce incisional pain.

DES Group
A Bispectral index (BIS) electroencephalogram value was obtained preinduction using a BIS monitor. Anesthesia was induced with propofol 2 mg/kg IV and fentanyl 2 µg/kg IV. Tracheal intubation was facilitated by mivacurium 0.15 mg/kg IV and 4% lidocaine 160 mg administered intratracheally immediately before endotracheal intubation. Anesthesia was maintained with DES 2%–6% in combination with 65% N2O in O2 titrated to keep BIS values between 45 and 65. The lungs were ventilated mechanically to maintain an end-tidal carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration between 32 and 36 mm Hg. Supplemental doses of fentanyl 25–50 µg/kg IV were given to treat increases in heart rate or mean blood pressure of more than 15% above preinduction baseline values. Mivacurium 0.04 mg/kg IV boluses were administered if required to maintain adequate muscle relaxation. DES and N2O were discontinued at the time of the last suture. The average values for BIS and total MAC of end-tidal DES and N2O were recorded for a 2-min period immediately before discontinuing the anesthetics. Neostigmine and glycopyrrolate were used to reverse mivacurium as required.

SSA Group
The spinal anesthetic technique used was as described previously by Stewart et al. (1). Spinal anesthesia was administered in the sitting position with a midline approach at the L3-4 or L4-5 level using a 27-gauge Whitacre spinal needle. After aspiration of cerebrospinal fluid, a solution of 1% lidocaine 10 mg mixed with sufentanil 10 µg and made up to a total volume of 3 mL with sterile water was injected as rapidly as possible in a single shot with the needle orifice cephalad. After sitting for 1 min, the patient was placed in 20–30° reverse Trendelenburg position while lithotomy positioning and skin preparation occurred. Patients were placed in steep Trendelenburg position during CO2 insufflation into the peritoneum to minimize diaphragmatic irritation from CO2 and consequent shoulder tip pain. Anxiety and abdominal or shoulder discomfort were treated with increments of midazolam 1 mg and fentanyl 25–50 µg IV, respectively. Surgical conditions were graded by the surgeon as poor, fair, good, or excellent.

Recovery times were determined at 1-min intervals from the discontinuation of maintenance anesthesia to eye opening, tracheal extubation, and orientation. Subsequently, recovery variables including time to straight leg raising and time to ambulation were determined at 15-min intervals until the patient was judged to be discharge ready (having achieved the Day Care Center’s standardized discharge criteria). Aldrete scores were determined on leaving the OR and at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 min in the postanesthesia care unit PACU (Table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Modified Aldrete Scoring System
 
In the PACU, postoperative pain was treated with increments of fentanyl 25 µg IV and/or codeine 30–60 mg IM. Pain assessments were made of abdominal and shoulder tip pain every 15 min using a visual analog scale scoring system until discharge from the PACU. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were treated with a single dose of dolasetron 50 mg IV. All untoward effects were documented, including any postural hypotension. Patients in both groups were discharged to the Phase II area after meeting the following criteria: 1) orientated in person, place and time, 2) stable vital signs, 3) absence of side effects, 4) adequate pain control, 5) no surgical complications, 6) resolution of motor and sensory block, and 7) minimal bleeding. Duration of Phase I and Phase II recovery were noted.

All anesthetics were administered by two of the investigators (PL and HV), and all assessments were performed by one of the investigators (PL).

Data were entered into a spreadsheet program (Microsoft Excel) and analyzed. Continuous data that were normally distributed were expressed as mean ± SD and analyzed for between-group differences using unpaired Student’s t-tests. When these data were measured over time, two factor repeated-measures analysis of variance was used, with the Student-Newman-Keuls test post hoc. Nonparametric data were analyzed by using the {chi}2 test. A P value of <0.05 was considered significant.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Demographic characteristics of the two groups were similar (Table 2). The incidence of operative procedures (tubal ligation) was similar in each group (9/10 DES versus 8/10 SSA). Intraoperative measurements are summarized in Table 3. Surgical conditions were rated good or excellent in 9 of 10 cases in the SSA group and excellent in 10 of 10 cases in the DES group (NS). Three patients in the SSA group experienced shoulder discomfort intraoperatively and two required supplemental fentanyl IV; however, none of the SSA patients had abdominal pain. Three patients in the GA group required supplemental fentanyl IV in the OR for control of hemodynamics. Three SSA patients required midazolam (<2 mg IV) for anxiolysis.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Demographic Characteristics
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Intraoperative Measurements
 
Aldrete scores were significantly better in the SSA group only for the two minutes on leaving the OR (Table 4). In the SSA group, the times to eye opening, extubation, and orientation were all zero and hence significantly shorter than the GA group (Table 5) Times to straight leg raising and ambulation were also significantly shorter in the SSA group. Five patients in the GA group had postoperative pain requiring treatment with both fentanyl and codeine, whereas none of the patients in the SSA group had any postoperative pain (P < 0.05). Three patients in the SSA group had mild or moderate PONV. Four patients in the SSA group reported pruritus in the PACU, but none required treatment. Two patients in the SSA group had hypotension (systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg) in the PACU that resolved spontaneously within seven minutes. There were no voiding difficulties encountered in either group. There was no significant difference in the duration of stay in the PACU between the two groups.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4. Aldrete Scores on Emergence
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 5. Recovery Times from Discontinuation of Anesthesia
 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
This study compared SSA with DES in patients undergoing short duration outpatient gynecological laparoscopy. Intraoperative conditions were comparable in both groups. Recovery was faster in the SSA group compared with DES as judged by times to exit the OR, perform straight leg raises, and ambulate. Patients in the DES group also required additional time to emerge from anesthesia.

Spinal anesthesia competes with the newer GA in ambulatory anesthesia but discharge times are significantly longer after conventional dose spinal anesthesia compared with GA (6,7). Discharge times reported with conventional dose spinal anesthesia using procaine or lidocaine range from 145 to 185 min (6,8), whereas discharge times after newer GA range from 100 to 140 min (6,9). In an effort to make spinal anesthesia more efficient for outpatient use, investigators have examined the feasibility of using smaller doses of local anesthetics because complete return of sensation to pinprick remains the rate-limiting step to early discharge (10). The addition of a small dose of intrathecal opioid overcomes the potential risk of inadequate block associated with small-dose lidocaine spinal anesthesia (8,10). Intrathecal opioids act synergistically with intrathecal local anesthetics to enhance subtherapeutic doses of local anesthetics that, as a sole drug, may not provide an adequate block (11,12). The dose of spinal lidocaine can be reduced from 75 mg to 10 mg without compromising intraoperative conditions (2,10). As the dose of lidocaine is progressively reduced, there are beneficial effects in terms of a more stable hemodynamic profile, as well as preservation of spinal cord function with a selective blockade of the spinothalamic columns (2,3,10). With selective spinal anesthesia, modalities such as light touch, proprioception, vibration sense, and motor function are essentially preserved. With a reduction in intrathecal lidocaine dose from 75 mg to 10 mg, the time to achieve discharge criteria decreased from 162 min to 75–91 min (2,3,10,13).

Comparison of SSA to propofol-based anesthesia demonstrated that times to straight leg raising and ambulation were faster in the SSA group (1). However, the propofol-based anesthetic group lacked an objective measure of depth of anesthesia such as BIS monitoring. In the present study, a BIS monitor was used to provide a more objective measure of anesthetic depth in the DES group and to avoid an excessive administration of anesthesia. Recovery times (Phase I and II) for the DES group were comparable to those reported in the literature by other investigators (14). Recovery times (Phase I and II) in the SSA group were not significantly shorter than the DES group even though patients in the DES group had significantly longer times to perform straight leg raises and ambulate. One explanation for this discrepancy may be that all patients in the SSA group were required to demonstrate complete recovery of sensory block (i.e., pinprick) before being transferred to Phase II.

Regrettably, two of the SSA patients with a history of severe PONV after previous GA experienced moderate PONV after SSA. Perhaps a better choice of prophylactic antiemetic in this group would have been a multimodal approach. The overall incidence of PONV in the SSA group in this study was comparable to that reported with spinal anesthesia in previous studies (13). Pruritus, a common side effect of SSA related to the use of intrathecal opioids (10,13), occurred in 40% of patients in the SSA group but resolved spontaneously without the need for pharmacological intervention. In keeping with our previously reported experience, voiding was not a problem in the SSA group (13).

When comparing a spinal technique with an awake patient to a GA technique, it is impossible to blind the patient, the surgeon, and the attending anesthesiologist to the technique of anesthesia. The anesthesiologist performing the assessments was not blinded with respect to anesthetic type; however, a single investigator performed all the assessments to avoid interobserver variability. These assessments were done using a strict assessment protocol in an effort to minimize bias. In addition, there may be concerns that the Aldrete score was designed for assessment of recovery of GA only and cannot be used for spinal anesthesia. On the contrary, the Aldrete score was designed to evaluate recovery after both general and neuraxial anesthesia (15). Some patients who receive regional anesthesia also require sedative/analgesic adjuvants that can impair the recovery process. The Aldrete score also allows objective assessment of recovery from such adjuvant therapy.

In conclusion, SSA provided satisfactory surgical conditions with Phase I and II recovery times that were comparable to DES-based GA for short duration outpatient gynecological laparoscopy. Patients receiving SSA were awake and oriented at the end of the procedure, had less postoperative pain, and were able to ambulate earlier than DES patients.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Stewart AVG, Vaghadia H, Collins L, Mitchell GWE. Small-dose selective spinal anesthesia for short duration outpatient laparoscopy: recovery characteristics compared to propofol anesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2001; 86: 570–2.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Vaghadia H, Viskari D, Mitchell GWE, Berrill A. Selective spinal anesthesia for outpatient laparoscopy. I: Characteristics of three hypobaric solutions. Can J Anaesth 2001; 48: 256–60.[Medline]
  3. Vaghadia H, Solylo MA, Henderson CL, Mitchell GWE. Selective spinal anesthesia for outpatient laparoscopy. II: Epinephrine and spinal cord function. Can J Anaesth 2001; 48: 261–6.[Web of Science][Medline]
  4. Vaghadia H, Collins L, Sun H, Mitchell GWE. Selective spinal anesthesia for outpatient laparoscopy. IV: Population pharmacodynamic modeling. Can J Anaesth 2001; 48: 273–8.[Medline]
  5. Henderson CL, Schmid J, Vaghadia H, et al. Selective spinal anesthesia for outpatient laparoscopy. III: Sufentanil versus lidocaine-sufentanil. Can J Anaesth 2001; 48: 267–72.[Medline]
  6. Mulroy MF, Larkin KL, Hodgson PS, et al. A comparison of spinal, epidural, and general anesthesia for outpatient anesthesia. Anesth Analg 2000; 91: 860–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Pavlin DJ, Rapp SE, Polissar NL, et al. Factors affecting discharge time in adult outpatients. Anesth Analg 1998; 87: 816–26.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Ben-David B, Maryanovsky M, Gurevitch A, et al. A comparison of minidose lidocaine-fentanyl and conventional dose lidocaine spinal anesthesia. Anesth Analg 2000; 91: 865–70.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Song D, Van Vlymen J, White P. Is the Bispectral Index useful in predicting fast-track eligibility after ambulatory anesthesia with propofol and desflurane? Anesth Analg 1998; 87: 1245–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Vaghadia H, McLeod DH, Mitchell GWE, et al. Small-dose hypobaric lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia for short duration outpatient laparoscopy. I. A randomized comparison with conventional dose hyperbaric lidocaine. Anesth Analg 1997; 84: 59–64.[Abstract]
  11. Wang C, Chakrabarti MK, Whitwam JG. Specific enhancement by fentanyl of the effects of intrathecal bupivacaine on nociceptive afferent but not on sympathetic efferent pathways in dogs. Anesthesiology 1993; 79: 766–73.[Web of Science][Medline]
  12. Ben-David B, Solomon E, Levin H, et al. Intrathecal fentanyl with small-dose dilute bupivacaine: better anesthesia without prolonging recovery. Anesth Analg 1997; 85: 560–5.[Abstract]
  13. Chilvers CR, Vaghadia H, Mitchell GWE, et al. Small-dose hypobaric lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia for short duration outpatient laparoscopy. II. Optimal fentanyl dose. Anesth Analg 1997; 84: 65–70.[Abstract]
  14. Song D, Joshi G, White PF. Fast-track eligibility after ambulatory anesthesia: a comparison of desflurane, sevoflurane and propofol. Anesth Analg 1998; 86: 267–73.[Abstract]
  15. Alderete JA, Kroulik D. A postanesthetic recovery score. Anesth Analg 1970; 49: 924–33.[Free Full Text]
Accepted for publication October 26, 2001.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
P. F. White, H. Kehlet, J. M. Neal, T. Schricker, D. B. Carr, F. Carli, and the Fast-Track Surgery Study Group
The Role of the Anesthesiologist in Fast-Track Surgery: From Multimodal Analgesia to Perioperative Medical Care
Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2007; 104(6): 1380 - 1396.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
S. S. Liu, W. M. Strodtbeck, J. M. Richman, and C. L. Wu
A Comparison of Regional Versus General Anesthesia for Ambulatory Anesthesia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2005; 101(6): 1634 - 1642.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
A.-M. Korhonen, J. V. Valanne, R. M. Jokela, P. Ravaska, and K. T. Korttila
A Comparison of Selective Spinal Anesthesia with Hyperbaric Bupivacaine and General Anesthesia with Desflurane for Outpatient Knee Arthroscopy
Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2004; 99(6): 1668 - 1673.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
M. Silvanto, P. Tarkkila, M.-L. Makela, and P. H. Rosenberg
The Influence of Ambulation Time on the Incidence of Transient Neurologic Symptoms After Lidocaine Spinal Anesthesia
Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2004; 98(3): 642 - 646.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lennox, P. H.
Right arrow Articles by Mitchell, G. W. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lennox, P. H.
Right arrow Articles by Mitchell, G. W. E.
Related Collections
Right arrow Ambulatory
Right arrow Pharmacology

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