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 (10)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ben-David, B.
Right arrow Articles by Solosko, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ben-David, B.
Right arrow Articles by Solosko, D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Ambulatory
Right arrow Regional Anesthesia
Right arrow Pharmacology

Anesth Analg 2002;95:1596-1600
© 2002 International Anesthesia Research Society

AMBULATORY ANESTHESIA

Minidose Lidocaine-Fentanyl Spinal Anesthesia in Ambulatory Surgery: Prophylactic Nalbuphine Versus Nalbuphine Plus Droperidol

Bruce Ben-David, MD*, Patrick J. DeMeo, MD{dagger}, Christen Lucyk, RN ADN*, and David Solosko, MD*

Departments of *Anesthesiology and {dagger}Orthopedic Surgery, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Address correspondence to Bruce Ben-David, MD, Department of Anesthesia, Allegheny General Hospital, 320 East North Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15212. Address e-mail to b.bendavid{at}verizon.net Reprints will not be available from the authors.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia (SABMLF) is a safe, effective, and efficient anesthetic for ambulatory surgery. Unfortunately, it has a frequent incidence of pruritus and a substantial incidence of nausea and vomiting. Nalbuphine is effective in treating or preventing pruritus after intrathecal or epidural morphine but may or may not have a beneficial effect on nausea and vomiting. Droperidol has demonstrated antiemetic efficacy with neuraxial opiates. In this study, we examined the prophylactic use of nalbuphine alone compared with nalbuphine with droperidol after SABMLF. One-hundred-twenty-four patients having outpatient knee arthroscopy under SABMLF with 20 mg of lidocaine 0.5% and 20 µg of fentanyl were randomized to receive IV at the end of surgery either 4 mg of nalbuphine (Group N) or droperidol 0.625 mg plus nalbuphine 4 mg (Group ND). The incidences of early (before discharge) and late onset nausea were, respectively, 18% versus 5% and 32% versus 13%. The postoperative incidences of pruritus were 61% versus 40%, whereas 19% of patients in Group N compared with 2% of patients in Group ND requested treatment for this. Group ND had lower pain scores and had a longer delay until first use of analgesic. There were no differences in average times to discharge. The only side effect of the medications was an increased drowsiness in Group ND. In conclusion, as prophylactic medication for use in conjunction with SABMLF, the addition of droperidol 0.625 mg to nalbuphine 4 mg was superior to nalbuphine alone. The combination provided for reduced postoperative nausea, pruritus, and pain—benefits that persisted after discharge home. The combination also avoided isolated cases of extreme delay in discharge.

IMPLICATIONS: Droperidol in combination with nalbuphine enhances analgesia and is more effective than nalbuphine alone in preventing pruritus, nausea, and vomiting after minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Recent studies have found that spinal anesthesia can be adapted to the ambulatory setting in a manner that well addresses concerns of delayed patient discharge and the phenomenon known as "transient neurologic symptoms" (TNS) that is most often associated with the use of intrathecal lidocaine (1–4). Vaghadia et al. (1,2) found that small-dose lidocaine-opiate spinal anesthesia allowed for rapid discharge after laparoscopy. Our findings with spinal anesthesia for knee arthroscopy concurred and, in addition, showed that the incidence of TNS was minimized by the use of minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia (SABMLF) (3,4). However, the SABMLF technique has been associated with a frequent incidence of postoperative pruritus and nausea (4). Beyond the discomfort associated with these symptoms, they may also lead to delayed postoperative discharge. Therefore, preventing both the nausea and the pruritus may not only provide a more pleasant experience for the patient, but also eliminate cases of delayed discharge.

Pruritus and nausea are well known side effects of intrathecal opioids. Nalbuphine is effective in treating pruritus after intrathecal or epidural morphine, and it accomplishes this with no increase in postoperative pain or other side effects (5,6). Although some reports suggest that nalbuphine has a similar beneficial effect on the associated nausea (6,7), other reports indicate only a modest benefit at best (5,8). Droperidol is effective for prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after general anesthesia (9) and likewise reduces the incidence of nausea and vomiting associated with epidural or intrathecal morphine (8,10). This study compares the prophylactic administration of nalbuphine with the prophylactic administration of nalbuphine in combination with droperidol for patients having spinal anesthesia for ambulatory surgery with the SABMLF technique.


   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
This study was approved by the hospital’s IRB, and patients all gave written, informed consent. All patients were between 18 and 75 yr of age, were ASA physical status I–II, and were scheduled for outpatient arthroscopic knee surgery. Patients were English speaking, agreeable to follow-up telephone interviews, and had no contraindications to spinal anesthesia. Patients were free of psychiatric, neurologic, or vestibular disorders and had not received any antiemetic medication within 48 h of surgery.

Patients received no premedication. On arrival in the operating room (OR), an IV infusion of lactated Ringer’s solution was begun, and patients were immediately given midazolam 0.02–0.03 mg/kg IV and fentanyl 0.75–1.0 µg/kg IV. Standard monitoring was applied and included continuous electrocardiogram (ECG), pulse oximetry, and automated blood pressure at 5-min intervals. All patients received supplemental oxygen via an oxygen mask.

Lumbar puncture was performed in the sitting position in all patients. Patients were immediately returned to supine position on completion of the spinal. Lumbar punctures were made with 25- or 26-gauge pencil-point needles positioned midline at the L2-3 or L3-4 interspace with the orifice directed cephalad. Injections were made over 10 to 15 s. The spinal injectate was prepared by drawing up a mixture of 5 mL of 1% lidocaine (50 mg), 1 mL of fentanyl (50 µg), and 4 mL of dextrose 10%. From this solution, 4 mL was used for the anesthetic. This yielded 20 mg of 0.5% lidocaine and 20 µg of fentanyl in dextrose 4%. All spinals were conducted by the same anesthesiologist (BB-D) and all surgeries by the same surgeon (PJD). Continuing intraoperative care was provided by a staff certified registered nurse anesthetist, who made the continuing determinations as to the need for further sedation or analgesia. Further sedation was allowed with midazolam 0.01–0.02 mg/kg IV, and further analgesia was allowed with fentanyl 0.75–1.0 µg/kg IV. If the patient still was unduly anxious or was still in pain, the protocol allowed for titration of additional propofol as needed. Intraarticular injection of 20 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine was made at the conclusion of surgery.

Patients were randomized by the sealed-envelope technique to receive one of two prophylactic IV injections at the conclusion of surgery. The injections, both of which were 2 mL in volume, comprised either nalbuphine 4 mg IV (Group N) or nalbuphine 4 mg plus droperidol 0.625 mg (Group ND). These drugs were administered in a double-blinded manner such that neither the patient, nor the recovery room nurses, nor the investigator performing follow-up assessments and phone calls was aware of study group assignment.

All patients bypassed the postanesthesia care unit (Phase I recovery) and were transferred directly from the OR to the Phase II recovery area. Patients’ progress during recovery was observed, but no attempt was made to intervene in nursing decisions regarding medications or timing of discharge. Standard criteria were used to determine home readiness, including 1) vital signs within 20% of preoperative value, 2) fully awake and oriented, 3) able to stand up and remain standing for >1 min and in most circumstances able to ambulate with crutches, 4) minimal nausea, 5) minimal to moderate pain, 6) minimal bleeding, and 7) having had and tolerated fluids by mouth. Voiding was not a requirement for discharge. A change in the surgery center’s discharge policy (as a result of consumer feedback) was instituted before commencing this study. Specifically, this entailed asking patients if they felt ready to go home, in addition to simply declaring them ready for discharge.

Intervals were recorded from the time of Phase II recovery arrival until first oral intake and until actual discharge. Pain in the recovery unit was treated with ketorolac 30 mg IV. Additional analgesia was provided with hydrocodone 5–10 mg by mouth with acetaminophen 500–1000 mg by mouth. Nausea was treated with dolasetron 12.5 mg IV. Pruritus was treated at patient request with diphenhydramine 12.5 mg IV. All medication requirements were recorded. At the time of discharge, patients were queried as to their postoperative experience of pain, nausea, pruritus, headache, or dizziness. Patients were asked to score positive responses on a verbal analog scale of 0 (none) to 10 (worst imaginable). Before discharge, it was recorded whether or not the patient had been able to void.

A telephone interview was conducted the evening of surgery, an interval no less than 6 h since discharge home. Patients were asked whether they had had any difficulty with voiding at home and, if so, the degree of difficulty and whether it had continued or been only on the first void. Patients were queried as to their at-home postoperative experience of pain, nausea, pruritus, headache, or dizziness. Patients were asked to score positive responses on a verbal analog scale of 0 (none) to 10 (worst imaginable). If patients had pain suggestive of TNS (back pain radiating to buttocks or legs), they were contacted again until resolution of their symptoms.

Power analysis was conducted before the study to determine the necessary study size. To show a reduction in the incidence of nausea from 22% to 5% at an {alpha} of 0.05 and ß of 0.80 required 58 patients per group. To show a 10-min reduction in discharge time from an average of 75 min ({varsigma} of 20 min) at an {alpha} of 0.05 and ß of 0.80 required 62 patients per group. Therefore, a study of 62 patients per group was planned.

Statistical analysis was conducted with Statview 5 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Data were analyzed with analysis of variance, the Mann-Whitney U-test, {chi}2 analysis, or expanded contingency table analysis, as appropriate. Results were considered significant at a P value of 0.05.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
No differences were found between the two groups with regard to age, height, weight, or sex (Table 1). There were no major anesthetic or surgical complications. Both groups averaged 44 min of intraoperative time. No significant differences were found between groups with regard to intraoperative supplemental drug use (Table 1). No patient required airway intervention or conversion to general anesthesia.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Demographics
 
Postanesthetic recovery data are displayed in Table 2. There was a small but statistically significant difference in time to first oral intake between groups. There was not a significant difference between groups in time to discharge home, but isolated cases of extreme delay in discharge were seen only in Group N. There were significant differences with regard to pain, nausea, and pruritus between groups (Table 2), with better outcomes on all variables in the ND group. No patient reported dysphoria, restlessness, or agitation when asked directly both at the discharge assessment and in the follow-up phone interview. Only one patient had mild difficulty voiding at home, but this resolved spontaneously and did not require intervention. Time from placement of the spinal block until voiding averaged 4.1 ± 1.8 h and did not differ between groups. A similar number of patients (19%) from both groups stopped for food on the way home from the surgery center.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Postanesthesia Recovery
 
At home (Table 3), the same differences between groups persisted in that the ND group had less nausea and pruritus and averaged an hour longer until first analgesic. Differences in pain scores at home the evening of surgery did not achieve significance. One patient in the study (1 of 124) had symptoms compatible with TNS, and these complaints resolved within 48 h of surgery.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Recovery at Home, the Evening of Surgery
 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
Previous work has demonstrated that small-dose lidocaine-opiate (sufentanil, fentanyl) spinal anesthesia provides reliable and safe anesthesia, efficient use of both the OR and recovery area, a high degree of patient satisfaction, and an infrequent incidence of TNS. The side effects of postoperative pruritus and nausea, however, remain important shortcomings of the technique. Our results indicate that the prophylactic combination of droperidol in conjunction with nalbuphine is more effective in reducing the incidence and severity of these side effects than nalbuphine alone.

Pruritus is a well recognized and common side effect of neuraxial opiates whose mechanism remains poorly understood (8). The incidence of pruritus after intrathecal fentanyl is typically reported in the range of 60%–80% (1,8,11,12). The incidence of pruritus after intrathecal fentanyl in outpatient orthopedic surgery has been reported as 66% (13) and 68% (4).

A variety of drugs have been studied for their ability to prevent or treat pruritus resulting from neuraxial opiates. Kjellberg and Tramer (8) reviewed this literature and concluded that the only drugs of proven efficacy were the µ-receptor antagonists naloxone and naltrexone, nalbuphine (a mixed agonist/antagonist), and droperidol. Nalbuphine appears to offer an advantage over the pure µ antagonists in that the latter cause a dose-dependent reversal of analgesia. Whereas titration to effect with the pure µ antagonists may be difficult in nalbuphine, even in large doses, it is unlikely to diminish analgesia (7,14–16). In one study of epidural morphine’s side effects, patients who received an IV nalbuphine infusion of 15 µg · kg-1 · h-1 had analgesia comparable to a control group but had less nausea and/or vomiting (13% vs 62%), had less pruritus (7% vs 62%), and were less likely to have an increased PaCO2 (6).

Our results in Group N are somewhat surprising and contrast with these prior reports. Our results also contrast with studies of single-dose IV nalbuphine administered for treatment of established pruritus after intrathecal morphine (5,17). In those reports, 3 mg of nalbuphine IV was 83% (17) and 97% (5) effective, and 4 mg of nalbuphine IV was 100% (5) effective. Our results do not suggest this degree, if any, of nalbuphine’s efficacy as a prophylactic antipruritic. Although we did not, for perceived ethical reasons, include a control group, our previous study of SABMLF, using essentially an identical technique with the same personnel, produced a similar (68%) incidence of pruritus.

These results demonstrate a significant reduction in pruritus, both early and late, with the addition of droperidol 0.625 mg IV to nalbuphine 4 mg IV. Droperidol, a butyrophenone with {alpha}-2 agonist, dopamine receptor antagonist, and serotonin (5HT3) receptor antagonist properties has been used both IV (18,19) and epidurally (20) to inhibit neuraxial opiate-induced pruritus. An added element to the question of IV droperidol’s antipruritic efficacy regards the dose-response relationship. Horta and Horta (19) showed that 2.5 mg of droperidol IV inhibited pruritus after epidural morphine but that 5.0 mg was ineffective. The antipruritic dose-response relationship of IV droperidol at doses <2.5 mg remains undefined. However, given the drug’s dose-related side effects, which include sedation, agitation, and dysphoria, and our own emphasis on speedy discharge, we believed that it was important to examine the usefulness of droperidol at this very small dose of 0.625 mg. Even at that dose, there was a sedating effect notable in the early recovery phase. Sedation was still evident at the time of discharge, as indicated by the 92% vs 65% of patients who still felt sleepy.

From the perspective of the patient, PONV is an important outcome to avoid (21). Wang et al. (7) found that a nalbuphine infusion in conjunction with epidural morphine decreased the total 24-hour incidence of nausea from 52% to 17% and of vomiting from 35% to 4%. Kjellberg and Tramer (8) combined the results from a number of trials with opioid antagonists to yield an average reduction in the incidence of neuraxial opioid-induced nausea from 54% (controls) to 44%. Our 18% incidence of early-onset (before discharge home) nausea in Group N as compared with the 22% incidence in our historical controls suggests only a minor benefit. However, the evidence of droperidol’s effect on neuraxial opiate-induced nausea is compelling. Studies uniformly show significant reductions in nausea and vomiting regardless of whether the drug is given IV (8,10) or epidurally (22,23). In our study, the addition of droperidol to nalbuphine produced a significant benefit over that of nalbuphine alone. The incidence of predischarge nausea was reduced from 18% to 5% and of postdischarge nausea from 32% to 13%.

The reductions in both pruritus and nausea achieved with the addition of droperidol to the nalbuphine prophylaxis were also accompanied by a significant analgesic benefit. The ND group had both lower pain scores and a longer delay until first use of analgesic. Although there are few data available on the specific analgesic potential or opiate-sparing effect of IV droperidol, there has been such work with epidural droperidol. These studies of epidural droperidol have yielded mixed results. Sanansilp et al. (10) saw no effect of either IV or epidural droperidol on the analgesia of epidural morphine. Others have found enhanced analgesia with epidural droperidol in both acute pain (22) and chronic pain (24).

As to side effects of the drugs, none were observed with nalbuphine and only a mild sedating effect with the droperidol. Of particular concern, since completion of this study a "Box Warning" has been added to droperidol’s labeling cautioning as to QT prolongation and the possibility of life threatening arrhythmia. The new labeling recommends continued electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring for two to three hours after drug administration. One solution might be to give the droperidol at the start of the case to take advantage of the sedation during surgery and to achieve the requisite time of ECG monitoring without delaying discharge.

The results of this study are potentially confounded by the use of propofol in 6% of patients. Propofol itself may have some antipruritic and antiemetic effects. However, these patients were equally divided between the two study groups. Moreover, its use did not seem to, in these several patients, alter the incidence or severity of either side effect. Mulroy et al. (13) also found that intraoperative use of propofol did not affect the frequency of pruritus.

In conclusion, this study indicates that the prophylactic treatment of pruritus and nausea after SABMLF is superior with droperidol in combination with nalbuphine than with nalbuphine alone. The combination regimen provided for significant reductions in postoperative nausea, pruritus, and pain—benefits that persisted after discharge home. The combination also avoided isolated cases of extreme delay in discharge. Such continuing improvements in anesthetic technique may make spinal anesthesia more attractive to use in the ambulatory surgical setting.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Vaghadia H, McLeod DH, Mitchell GW, 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]
  2. Vaghadia H, Viskari D, Mitchell GW, Berrill A. Selective spinal anesthesia for outpatient laparoscopy. I. Characteristics of three hypobaric solutions. Can J Anaesth 2001; 48: 256–60.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. 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]
  4. Ben-David B, DeMeo PJ, Lucyk C, Solosko D. A comparison of minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia and local anesthesia/propofol infusion for outpatient knee arthroscopy. Anesth Analg 2001; 93: 319–25.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Somrat C, Oranuch K, Ketchada U, et al. Optimal dose of nalbuphine for treatment of intrathecal-morphine induced pruritus after caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 1999; 25: 209–13.[Medline]
  6. Wang JJ, Ho ST, Hu OY. Comparison of intravenous nalbuphine infusion versus saline as an adjuvant for epidural morphine. Reg Anesth 1996; 21: 214–8.[ISI][Medline]
  7. Wang JJ, Ho ST, Tzeng JI. Comparison of intravenous nalbuphine infusion versus naloxone in the prevention of epidural morphine-related side effects. Reg Anesth Pain Med 1998; 23: 479–84.[ISI][Medline]
  8. Kjellberg F, Tramer MR. Pharmacological control of opioid-induced pruritus: a quantitative systematic review of randomized trials. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2001; 18: 346–57.[ISI][Medline]
  9. Henzi I, Sonderegger J, Tramer MR. Efficacy, dose-response, and adverse effects of droperidol for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Can J Anaesth 2000; 47: 537–51.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Sanansilp V, Areewatana S, Tonsukchai N. Droperidol and the side effects of epidural morphine after cesarean section. Anesth Analg 1998; 86: 532–7.[Abstract]
  11. 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]
  12. Liu S, Chiu AA, Carpenter RL, et al. Fentanyl prolongs lidocaine spinal anesthesia without prolonging recovery. Anesth Analg 1995; 80: 730–4.[Abstract]
  13. Mulroy MF, Larkin KL, Siddiqui A. Intrathecal fentanyl-induced pruritus is more severe in combination with procaine than with lidocaine or bupivacaine. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2001; 26: 252–6.[ISI][Medline]
  14. Morgan PJ, Mehta S, Kapala DM. Nalbuphine pretreatment in cesarean section patients receiving epidural morphine. Reg Anesth 1991; 16: 84–8.[Medline]
  15. Cohen SE, Ratner EF, Kreitzman TR, et al. Nalbuphine is better than naloxone for treatment of side effects after epidural morphine. Anesth Analg 1992; 75: 747–52.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Kendrick WD, Woods AM, Daly MY, et al. Naloxone versus nalbuphine infusion for prophylaxis of epidural morphine-induced pruritus. Anesth Analg 1996; 82: 641–7.[Abstract]
  17. Charuluxananan S, Kyokong O, Somboonviboon W, et al. Nalbuphine versus propofol for treatment of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus after cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg 2001; 93: 162–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Horta ML, Horta BL. Inhibition of epidural morphine-induced pruritus by intravenous droperidol. Reg Anesth 1993; 18: 118–20.[ISI][Medline]
  19. Horta ML, Ramos L, Goncalves ZR, et al. Inhibition of epidural morphine-induced pruritus by intravenous droperidol: the effect of increasing the doses of morphine and of droperidol. Reg Anesth 1996; 21: 312–7.[ISI][Medline]
  20. Horta ML, Ramos L, Goncalves ZR. The inhibition of epidural morphine-induced pruritus by epidural droperidol. Anesth Analg 2000; 90: 638–41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Macario A, Weinger M, Carney S, Kim A. Which clinical anesthesia outcomes are important to avoid? The perspective of patients. Anesth Analg 1999; 89: 652–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Kotake Y, Matsumoto M, Ai K, et al. Additional droperidol, not butorphanol, augments epidural fentanyl analgesia following anorectal surgery. J Clin Anesth 2000; 12: 9–13.[ISI][Medline]
  23. Aldrete JA. Reduction of nausea and vomiting from epidural opioids by adding droperidol to the infusate in home-bound patients. J Pain Symptom Manage 1995; 10: 544–7.[ISI][Medline]
  24. Bach V, Carl P, Ravlo O, et al. Potentiation of epidural opioids with epidural droperidol: a one-year retrospective study. Anaesthesia 1986; 41: 1116–9.[ISI][Medline]
Accepted for publication August 14, 2002.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Canadian J. AnesthesiaHome page
B. Waxler, S. A. Mondragon, S. N. Patel, and K. Nedumgottil
Intrathecal lidocaine and sufentanil shorten postoperative recovery after outpatient rectal surgery: [L'administration intrathecale de lidocaine et de sufentanil diminue le temps de recuperation apres une operation du rectum en chirurgie ambulatoire]
Can J Anesth, August 1, 2004; 51(7): 680 - 684.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Canadian J. AnesthesiaHome page
B. Waxler, S. A. Mondragon, S. N. Patel, and K. Nedumgottil
Prophylactic ondansetron does not reduce the incidence of itching induced by intrathecal sufentanil: [L'administration prophylactique d'ondansetron ne reduit pas l'incidence de prurit induit par le sufentanil intrathecal]
Can J Anesth, August 1, 2004; 51(7): 685 - 689.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
J. L. Parlow, I. Costache, N. Avery, and K. Turner
Single-Dose Haloperidol for the Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting After Intrathecal Morphine
Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2004; 98(4): 1072 - 1076.
[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 (10)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ben-David, B.
Right arrow Articles by Solosko, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ben-David, B.
Right arrow Articles by Solosko, D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Ambulatory
Right arrow Regional Anesthesia
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