Subarachnoid sufentanil versus lidocaine spinal anesthesia for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Regional anesthesia Pub Date : 1997-11-01
M P Eaton, A K Chhibber, D R Green
{"title":"Subarachnoid sufentanil versus lidocaine spinal anesthesia for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.","authors":"M P Eaton,&nbsp;A K Chhibber,&nbsp;D R Green","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Anesthetic techniques that reduce the time required for postoperative care can significantly reduce the cost of procedures. This study was designed to discover whether the use of subarachnoid sufentanil for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) would enable patients to be discharged more rapidly following surgery as compared with subarachnoid lidocaine, while providing equivalent efficacy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-nine patients undergoing 40 ESWLs were randomized to receive either 12.5 microg of sufentanil or 75 mg of lidocaine by the subarachnoid route. The need for additional analgesia, incidence of adverse effects, and time to discharge were recorded and compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients receiving sufentanil were discharged 52 minutes sooner than patients receiving lidocaine (166 +/- 77 vs 218 +/- 46 minutes, respectively, P < .05). Analyzed separately, women receiving sufentanil were discharged earlier than those receiving lidocaine (120 +/- 55 vs 208 +/- 42 minutes, P < .01). There was no significant difference in discharge times between men in each group. Patients in the sufentanil group had more pruritus and less change in blood pressure than patients in the lidocaine group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of other adverse effects or in the use of additional analgesia or sedation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Subarachnoid sufentanil provides acceptable analgesia for ESWL and offers the advantages of more rapid discharge for female patients and better hemodynamic stability as compared with lidocaine spinal anesthesia.</p>","PeriodicalId":77347,"journal":{"name":"Regional anesthesia","volume":"22 6","pages":"515-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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 and objectives: Anesthetic techniques that reduce the time required for postoperative care can significantly reduce the cost of procedures. This study was designed to discover whether the use of subarachnoid sufentanil for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) would enable patients to be discharged more rapidly following surgery as compared with subarachnoid lidocaine, while providing equivalent efficacy.

Methods: Thirty-nine patients undergoing 40 ESWLs were randomized to receive either 12.5 microg of sufentanil or 75 mg of lidocaine by the subarachnoid route. The need for additional analgesia, incidence of adverse effects, and time to discharge were recorded and compared.

Results: Patients receiving sufentanil were discharged 52 minutes sooner than patients receiving lidocaine (166 +/- 77 vs 218 +/- 46 minutes, respectively, P < .05). Analyzed separately, women receiving sufentanil were discharged earlier than those receiving lidocaine (120 +/- 55 vs 208 +/- 42 minutes, P < .01). There was no significant difference in discharge times between men in each group. Patients in the sufentanil group had more pruritus and less change in blood pressure than patients in the lidocaine group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of other adverse effects or in the use of additional analgesia or sedation.

Conclusions: Subarachnoid sufentanil provides acceptable analgesia for ESWL and offers the advantages of more rapid discharge for female patients and better hemodynamic stability as compared with lidocaine spinal anesthesia.

蛛网膜下腔舒芬太尼与利多卡因脊髓麻醉用于体外冲击波碎石。
背景和目的:减少术后护理所需时间的麻醉技术可以显著降低手术成本。本研究旨在探索在体外冲击波碎石(ESWL)中使用蛛网膜下腔舒芬太尼与蛛网膜下腔利多卡因相比,是否能使患者术后更快出院,同时提供相同的疗效。方法:39例接受40次体外冲击波治疗的患者随机接受蛛网膜下腔给药12.5 mg舒芬太尼或75 mg利多卡因。记录和比较额外镇痛的需要、不良反应的发生率和出院时间。结果:舒芬太尼组比利多卡因组提前52分钟出院(166 +/- 77 vs 218 +/- 46分钟,P < 0.05)。单独分析,舒芬太尼组出院时间比利多卡因组早(120 +/- 55分钟vs 208 +/- 42分钟,P < 0.01)。两组男性出院时间差异无统计学意义。与利多卡因组相比,舒芬太尼组患者瘙痒较多,血压变化较小。在其他不良反应的发生率或使用额外的镇痛或镇静方面没有显著差异。结论:与利多卡因脊髓麻醉相比,蛛网膜下腔舒芬太尼为ESWL提供了可接受的镇痛方法,且具有女性患者出院更快、血流动力学稳定性更好的优点。
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