Background Epidural anesthesia affects lower extremities, which often prevents early mobilization postoperatively. The incidence of numbness and motor weakness in the lower extremities with respect to epidural catheter placement site in cesarean section (CS) is uncertain. We aimed to investigate the effect of catheter placement site on postoperative lower extremities numbness and motor weakness in patients who received combined spinal–epidural anesthesia (CSEA) for CS including analgesic effects and optimal epidural placement site in CS. Methods We retrospectively included 205 patients who underwent CS with CSEA at the University of Tsukuba Hospital between April 2018 and March 2020, and assessed numbness and motor weakness in the lower extremities. We also examined whether differences in the intervertebral space of epidural catheter placement and epidural effect on the lower extremities are related to analgesic effects. ANOVA and Mann–Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis. Results The incidence of numbness and motor weakness were 67 (33%) and 28 (14%), respectively. All patients with motor weakness had numbness. A more caudal placement was associated with increased incidence of affected lower extremities. There was no significant difference in the analgesic effect depending on the catheter placement site. When the lower extremities were affected, the number of additional analgesics increased (p < 0.001). Patient-controlled epidural analgesia was used for fewer days in patients with motor weakness (p = 0.046). Conclusion In CS, epidural catheter placement at T10–11 or T11–12 interspace is expected to reduce effect on the lower extremities and improve quality of postoperative analgesia.

The only official method that can detect the skin sensitizing potential of chemicals, including the elicitation response, is the OECD test guideline (TG) 406. However, this guideline uses guinea pigs, which requires complex procedures. Since a simple and complete test method for evaluating skin sensitization is needed, especially for mechanistic studies of skin sensitization, this study confirmed the reactivity of mice to skin sensitizing substances. We set up a protocol involving one induction exposure of the test substance to the back skin, followed by three challenge exposures to the auricle (Protocol 2), and compared their skin sensitization responses with the results of two exposures to the auricle and back skin every 2 weeks (Protocol 1) and a local lymph node assay (TG442B). A hapten 2,4-dinitrofluorobenzene caused significant auricular thickening, skin inflammation, and enlarged auricular lymph nodes in Protocols 1 and 2. These changes were more pronounced in Protocol 2. Plasma IgE and IgG1 and gene expression of IL4, IFNγ, and perforin were significantly increased in Protocol 2. Cell proliferation in the auricular lymph nodes was observed in both protocols as in TG442B. These results indicate that Protocol 2 can be a good candidate for a relatively simple skin sensitization test.

No abstract

Introduction: In the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery program, abdominal wall blocks are strongly recommended as postoperative multimodal analgesia for laparoscopic abdominal surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of single-shot rectus sheath block (RSB) with that of thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) as a method of multimodal analgesia in patients receiving conventional laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Methods: A noninferiority comparison was performed. Patients scheduled for laparoscopic gastric or colorectal surgery were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided randomly into two groups: TEA and RSB. The primary endpoint was the numerical rating scale (NRS) score upon coughing as of 24 hours after surgery. Results: In total, 80 patients were randomly assigned to receive TEA (n = 42) or RSB (n = 38). Three patients were excluded from the TEA group after randomization. The NRS score on coughing as of 24 hours after surgery was significantly lower in the TEA group than in the RSB group (least square mean: 3.59 vs 6.39; 95% confidence interval for the difference: 1.87 to 3.74, P < .001). The NRS scores upon coughing and at rest were significantly lower in the TEA group than in the RSB group as of 4, 24 and 48 hours after surgery. Patient satisfaction with postoperative analgesia was significantly higher in the TEA group. Postoperative adverse events were not significantly different between groups.Conclusion: This is the first report of comparing RSB with TEA in laparoscopic surgery. TEA may be recommended as a multimodal analgesia protocol for laparoscopic gastric and colorectal surgery.