Comparison of block characteristics in continuous spinal anesthesia and continuous epidural anesthesia for lower limb orthopedic surgeries: An interventional study

P. Shah, K. Shah, Nikita Vipul, P. Agrawal
{"title":"Comparison of block characteristics in continuous spinal anesthesia and continuous epidural anesthesia for lower limb orthopedic surgeries: An interventional study","authors":"P. Shah, K. Shah, Nikita Vipul, P. Agrawal","doi":"10.4103/jica.jica_14_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Continuous epidural anesthesia (CEA) is commonly used in routine practice even though it needs a higher dose of local anesthetics (LA) and is sometimes associated with a patchy or unilateral block. Despite advantages, continuous spinal anesthesia (CSA) is underutilized because of concern related to infection and postdural puncture headache. Our aim was to compare the block characteristics and hemodynamic changes following CSA and CEA in lower limb orthopedic surgeries. Materials and Methods: After approval from the Institutional Scientific and Ethics Committee and Registration with (Clinical Trials Registry of India/2021/02/031575), a prospective, double-blind, randomized study was conducted in 144 patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists I-II, aged 18–65 years, scheduled for lower limb orthopedic surgeries. Patients were randomly divided into two groups according to anesthesia technique used (n = 72), i.e., Group CSA and Group CEA. Block characteristics, hemodynamic variables, intraoperative LA requirement, and complications were recorded. Results: Demographic and surgical data, grade of sensory and motor blockade, and incidence of complications were comparable in both the groups. Induction time was significantly shorter in CSA (8.14 ± 0.88 min vs. 15.75 ± 3.29 min, P < 0.0001). Performance time (5.31 ± 0.92 min vs. 4.92 ± 1 min; P = 0.008), duration of blockade (68.3 ± 4.23 min vs. 65.54 ± 4 min; P < 0.0001), and analgesia (230.48 ± 40.76 min vs. 222.86 ± 39.79 min; P = 0.024) were significantly longer in CSA. A significant fall in diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure occurred in CEA. LA requirement was significantly lower in CSA (11.62 ± 2.5 mg vs. 65.35 ± 7.71 mg; P < 0.00001). Conclusions: Considering shorter induction time, prolonged sensory blockade, and analgesia with greater hemodynamic stability, CSA could be preferred over CEA for lower limb orthopedic surgeries.","PeriodicalId":361779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Indian College of Anaesthesiologists","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Indian College of Anaesthesiologists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jica.jica_14_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Continuous epidural anesthesia (CEA) is commonly used in routine practice even though it needs a higher dose of local anesthetics (LA) and is sometimes associated with a patchy or unilateral block. Despite advantages, continuous spinal anesthesia (CSA) is underutilized because of concern related to infection and postdural puncture headache. Our aim was to compare the block characteristics and hemodynamic changes following CSA and CEA in lower limb orthopedic surgeries. Materials and Methods: After approval from the Institutional Scientific and Ethics Committee and Registration with (Clinical Trials Registry of India/2021/02/031575), a prospective, double-blind, randomized study was conducted in 144 patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists I-II, aged 18–65 years, scheduled for lower limb orthopedic surgeries. Patients were randomly divided into two groups according to anesthesia technique used (n = 72), i.e., Group CSA and Group CEA. Block characteristics, hemodynamic variables, intraoperative LA requirement, and complications were recorded. Results: Demographic and surgical data, grade of sensory and motor blockade, and incidence of complications were comparable in both the groups. Induction time was significantly shorter in CSA (8.14 ± 0.88 min vs. 15.75 ± 3.29 min, P < 0.0001). Performance time (5.31 ± 0.92 min vs. 4.92 ± 1 min; P = 0.008), duration of blockade (68.3 ± 4.23 min vs. 65.54 ± 4 min; P < 0.0001), and analgesia (230.48 ± 40.76 min vs. 222.86 ± 39.79 min; P = 0.024) were significantly longer in CSA. A significant fall in diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure occurred in CEA. LA requirement was significantly lower in CSA (11.62 ± 2.5 mg vs. 65.35 ± 7.71 mg; P < 0.00001). Conclusions: Considering shorter induction time, prolonged sensory blockade, and analgesia with greater hemodynamic stability, CSA could be preferred over CEA for lower limb orthopedic surgeries.
连续脊髓麻醉与连续硬膜外麻醉在下肢骨科手术中的阻滞特征比较:一项介入性研究
背景:持续硬膜外麻醉(CEA)通常用于常规实践,尽管它需要更高剂量的局麻药(LA),有时伴有局部或单侧阻滞。尽管有优势,但由于担心感染和硬脊膜穿刺后头痛,持续脊髓麻醉(CSA)未得到充分利用。我们的目的是比较CSA和CEA在下肢骨科手术后的阻滞特征和血流动力学变化。材料与方法:经机构科学与伦理委员会批准并在印度临床试验注册中心注册(2021/02/031575)注册后,对144例美国麻醉医师学会I-II期患者进行前瞻性、双盲、随机研究,年龄18-65岁,计划进行下肢骨科手术。根据麻醉方式的不同,将患者随机分为CSA组和CEA组(n = 72)。记录阻滞特征、血流动力学变量、术中LA需求和并发症。结果:两组患者的人口学和手术数据、感觉和运动阻断程度以及并发症发生率具有可比性。CSA组诱导时间明显短于对照组(8.14±0.88 min vs. 15.75±3.29 min, P < 0.0001)。表演时间(5.31±0.92 min vs. 4.92±1 min);P = 0.008),阻断时间(68.3±4.23 min vs. 65.54±4 min;P < 0.0001),镇痛(230.48±40.76 min vs 222.86±39.79 min;P = 0.024)。CEA患者舒张压和平均动脉压明显下降。CSA组LA需要量显著降低(11.62±2.5 mg vs. 65.35±7.71 mg);P < 0.00001)。结论:CSA诱导时间短,感觉阻滞时间长,镇痛效果好,血流动力学稳定性好,在下肢骨科手术中优于CEA。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信