Comparative study of intrathecal midazolam versus fentanyl as adjuvants to ropivacaine for lower-limb surgery

S. Elfawal, A. Shoukry, Walid H. Nofal
{"title":"Comparative study of intrathecal midazolam versus fentanyl as adjuvants to ropivacaine for lower-limb surgery","authors":"S. Elfawal, A. Shoukry, Walid H. Nofal","doi":"10.4103/1687-7934.189101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The current prospective randomized double-blind study was designed to compare the clinical efficacy of intrathecal midazolam versus fentanyl when added to hyperbaric ropivacaine, evaluating the effect of each on the duration and quality of spinal blockade produced by hyperbaric ropivacaine. Patients and methods The study was conducted on 90 patients of both sexes, aged 20-60 years, of class I or II of the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, who were undergoing elective lower-limb surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to three groups (30 patients each): group R (control group) received 3 ml (15 mg) of hyperbaric ropivacaine plus 0.5 ml of normal saline (0.9%) at a total volume of 3.5 ml intrathecally, whereas group RF received 3 ml (15 mg) of hyperbaric ropivacaine plus 0.5 ml of 25 μg fentanyl (50 μg/ml) at a total volume of 3.5 ml intrathecally and group RM received 3 ml (15 mg) of hyperbaric ropivacaine plus 0.5 ml of 1 mg midazolam (2 mg/ml) at a total volume of 3.5 ml intrathecally. The onset and duration of sensory and motor blockade, postoperative pain, and the time to first rescue analgesia request were noted. Patients were observed for hypotension, bradycardia, sedation, respiratory depression, pruritus, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Results The onset times and the duration of motor blockade were comparable among groups, whereas the time to sensory block regression was longer in group RM and group RF as compared with group R (P < 0.001). The duration of postoperative analgesia was significantly longer in group RM and group RF as compared with group R (P < 0.001), whereas there was no difference between group RM and group RF. The incidence of pruritus and vomiting was higher in group RF. Conclusion Adding midazolam to hyperbaric ropivacaine in spinal anesthesia for lower-limb surgeries is considered a good alternative for improving the duration of sensory block and decreasing the analgesic requirement in the early postoperative period with minimal side effects compared with hyperbaric ropivacaine alone or fentanyl combined with hyperbaric ropivacaine.","PeriodicalId":7492,"journal":{"name":"Ain-Shams Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ain-Shams Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/1687-7934.189101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background The current prospective randomized double-blind study was designed to compare the clinical efficacy of intrathecal midazolam versus fentanyl when added to hyperbaric ropivacaine, evaluating the effect of each on the duration and quality of spinal blockade produced by hyperbaric ropivacaine. Patients and methods The study was conducted on 90 patients of both sexes, aged 20-60 years, of class I or II of the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, who were undergoing elective lower-limb surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to three groups (30 patients each): group R (control group) received 3 ml (15 mg) of hyperbaric ropivacaine plus 0.5 ml of normal saline (0.9%) at a total volume of 3.5 ml intrathecally, whereas group RF received 3 ml (15 mg) of hyperbaric ropivacaine plus 0.5 ml of 25 μg fentanyl (50 μg/ml) at a total volume of 3.5 ml intrathecally and group RM received 3 ml (15 mg) of hyperbaric ropivacaine plus 0.5 ml of 1 mg midazolam (2 mg/ml) at a total volume of 3.5 ml intrathecally. The onset and duration of sensory and motor blockade, postoperative pain, and the time to first rescue analgesia request were noted. Patients were observed for hypotension, bradycardia, sedation, respiratory depression, pruritus, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Results The onset times and the duration of motor blockade were comparable among groups, whereas the time to sensory block regression was longer in group RM and group RF as compared with group R (P < 0.001). The duration of postoperative analgesia was significantly longer in group RM and group RF as compared with group R (P < 0.001), whereas there was no difference between group RM and group RF. The incidence of pruritus and vomiting was higher in group RF. Conclusion Adding midazolam to hyperbaric ropivacaine in spinal anesthesia for lower-limb surgeries is considered a good alternative for improving the duration of sensory block and decreasing the analgesic requirement in the early postoperative period with minimal side effects compared with hyperbaric ropivacaine alone or fentanyl combined with hyperbaric ropivacaine.
鞘内咪达唑仑与芬太尼作为罗哌卡因辅助剂用于下肢手术的比较研究
本前瞻性随机双盲研究旨在比较咪达唑仑和芬太尼加入高压罗哌卡因后鞘内注射的临床疗效,评估两者对高压罗哌卡因产生的脊髓阻滞的持续时间和质量的影响。患者与方法本研究纳入90例择期下肢手术患者,男女均有,年龄20-60岁,美国麻醉医师学会分级I级或II级。患者随机分为三组(每组30例):R组(对照组)收到了3毫升(15毫克)的高压ropivacaine + 0.5毫升的生理盐水(0.9%)总量为3.5毫升鞘内,而射频组收到3毫升(15毫克)的高压ropivacaine + 0.5毫升的25μg芬太尼(50μg / ml)总量为3.5毫升鞘内和组RM收到3毫升(15毫克)的高压ropivacaine + 0.5毫升的1毫克咪达唑仑(2毫克/毫升)总量为3.5毫升鞘内。记录感觉和运动阻滞的发生和持续时间,术后疼痛,以及第一次抢救止痛要求的时间。观察患者有无低血压、心动过缓、镇静、呼吸抑制、瘙痒、术后恶心呕吐。结果两组间运动阻滞发作次数和持续时间具有可比性,RM组和RF组感觉阻滞回归时间较R组长(P < 0.001)。RM组和RF组术后镇痛持续时间明显长于R组(P < 0.001),而RM组和RF组之间无差异。RF组瘙痒、呕吐发生率较高。结论与单纯高压氧罗哌卡因或芬太尼联用高压氧罗哌卡因相比,在高压氧罗哌卡因中加入咪达唑仑可改善术后早期感觉阻滞时间,减少术后早期镇痛需求,且副作用小。
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