Hypobaric Spinal Anaesthesia with Bupivacaine (0.1%) Gives Selective Sensory Block for Ano-Rectal Surgery

Maroof, M.; Khan, Rashid M.; Siddique, Mahmood; Tariq, Muhammad Abbas

doi:10.1097/00132586-199610000-00058

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sensory and motor blockade were assessed at 1, 3, 5, 7 and 10 min after time 0 and then every 5 min. Sensory blockade was assessed using a pin-prick test and motor blockade was assessed using three point scale: 1 = full motor movement at ankle and knee joint, 2 = restricted motor movements, 3 = full motor block, no movement [5]. Motor blockade (degree 3) was assessed as complete motor block.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…sacral, lumbar and lower thoracic roots and preserved haemodynamic stability [5]. In our study, patients were placed in the standard prone position and therefore we preferred to use plain solutions of bupivacaine and levobupivacaine.…”

Section: ó 2008 the Authorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In previous work, the onset time of sensory block was defined as the interval between intrathecal administration and maximal spread of the sensory block or spread of the sensory block at T 10 [8,9,11]. However we defined this level as L 5 .…”

Section: ó 2008 the Authorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The use of low dose plain solutions of local anaesthetic agents for spinal anaesthesia in the prone position: bupivacaine compared with levobupivacaine

Cuvas¹,

Güleç

Karaaslan

et al. 2008

Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryIn this study, we aimed to test the hypothesis that 1-ml plain solution of 0.5% bupivacaine or 0.5% levopubivacaine administered in a subarachnoid block can provide adequate anaesthesia and operating conditions for pilonidal cyst ⁄ sinus operations performed in the prone position. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of patient demographic data, duration of operation, patient-surgeon satisfaction, haemodynamic changes and side effects. There were no significant differences found in the onset time, highest block level achieved, two segment regression, time to S 2 regression of sensory block and the number of anaesthetised dermatomes, between the two groups (p = 0.077, 0.057, 0.091, 0.084 and 0.057 respectively). The incidence of complete motor blockade was 16% and 8% in Group B at the start and at the end of the operation. There was no complete motor blockade in Group L (p = 0.110 and 0.490 respectively). We conclude that both regimens are effective and safe for use in subarachnoid anaesthesia for pilonidal cyst ⁄ sinus operations performed in the prone position.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: ó 2008 the Authorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The use of low dose plain solutions of local anaesthetic agents for spinal anaesthesia in the prone position: bupivacaine compared with levobupivacaine

Cuvas¹,

Güleç

Karaaslan

et al. 2008

Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…18,19 Lavi et al 4 presented a retrospective comparison between general and epidural anaesthesia for bone marrow harvesting. Patients with RA required less RBC units and postoperative analgesics.…”

Section: Shahmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety and efficacy of spinal vs general anaesthesia in bone marrow harvesting

Burmeister

Standl

Brauer

et al. 1998

Bone Marrow Transplant

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary:Bone marrow harvesting (BMH) can be performed with either general (GA) or spinal anaesthesia (SPA). Whether SPA is advantageous in BMH and if this technique is safe for procedures performed in the prone position is still controversial. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of both anaesthetic techniques in BMH, 37 allogeneic donors (nine female, 28 male; 34.3 ؎ 9 years; ASA class 1-2) received either spinal (group 1, n = 20) or general anaesthesia (group 2, n = 17) according to their personal wishes. Under standardised harvesting conditions, haematology parameters, cell counts (MNC, CD34 + ), haemodynamic parameters, adverse reactions and patient satisfaction were registered. No differences were seen between groups with respect to demographic data, harvesting time (55 ؎ 17 vs 60 ؎ 16 min) and bone marrow cell counts (MNC: 6.68 ؎ 2.1 vs 5.7 ؎ 1.7 ml/10 6 ). The incidence of hypotension was higher in group 1 (45 vs 10.8%; P = 0.042). Postoperative analgesic requirement and emesis were increased in group 2 (P Ͻ 0.04) in comparison to group 1. In conclusion, the present study failed to show superiority of spinal over general anaesthesia with regard to the quality of the harvested bone marrow. However, the lower incidence of complaints after spinal anaesthesia appears to offer an advantage over GA in healthy allogeneic bone marrow donors.

show abstract

“…As lateas the 1960's the technique was applied for the induction of spinal anaesthesia for upper laparotomies, and a recent publication describes the technique for anorectal surgery (1).  For procedures performed in the prone position, such as perirectal or lower lumbar disc surgery (1-3), as well as for radiological procedures (4),spinal anesthesia is administered frequently in lateral decubitus or sitting position.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%