Combined Spinal-epidural Group Research Articles

Cardiovascular Effects of Tourniquet Application with Cardiac Cycle Efficiency: A Prospective Observational Study

Objectives: The impact of the tourniquet on cardiac efficiency remains unknown. This study aimed to assess the impact of the tourniquet on cardiac cycle efficiency (CCE) and to interpret how general anesthesia (GA) or combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA) affects this during surgery using cardiac energy parameters. Methods: This prospective observational study included 43 patients undergoing elective unilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with a tourniquet divided into GA (n = 22) and CSEA (n = 21) groups. Cardiac energy parameters were measured before anesthesia (T1), pre-tourniquet inflation (T2), during inflation (T3–T8), and post-deflation (T9). The estimated power of the study was 0.99 based on the differences and standard deviations in CCE at T2–T3 for all patients (effect size: 0.88, alpha error: 0.05). Results: CCE decreased significantly more at T3 in the GA group than in the CSEA group, whereas dP/dtmax and Ea increased more (p < 0.05, p < 0.001, and p < 0.01, respectively). At T9, CCE increased significantly in the GA group, whereas dP/dtmax and Ea decreased (p < 0.05, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: The tourniquet reduces cardiac efficiency through compensatory responses, and CSEA may mitigate this effect.

The Effect of Combined Spinal Epidural Anesthesia on Shoulder Pain in Laparoscopic Extraperitoneal Hernia Surgery.

Shoulder pain is a condition that seriously discomforts patients and develops caused by a peritoneal tear in laparoscopic extraperitoneal hernia repair (TEP) surgeries. Although surgeons generally prefer general anesthesia for the TEP technique, many studies have been carried out on the use of regional anesthesia in recent years. In our study, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of the combined spinal/epidural anesthesia (CSEA) method to prevent shoulder pain in the TEP technique. The patients who operated with the TEP procedure were divided into 2 groups; SA (group 1) and CSEA (group 2). The 2 patient groups were compared in terms of sex, age, body mass index, duration of surgery, total operation time, patient satisfaction, pain scores, length of hospital stay, adverse effects, intraoperative, and postoperative complications. The number of patients in group 1 was 42 and group 2 was 40. The mean operation time was recorded as 55.9 and 80.2 minutes in groups 1 and 2, respectively, which was statistically significantly shorter in group 1 (P<0.001). Postoperative pain was significantly less in group 2 for the 4th hour (P<0.0001) and the 12th hour (P=0.047). There was no difference between the 2 groups in terms of peritoneal tear (P=0.860). Intraoperative and postoperative shoulder pain was significantly less in group 2 (P=0.038, P=0015, respectively). CSEA is an effective and safe anesthesia method for preventing shoulder pain that develops after TEP surgeries.

Comparison of Epidural, Combined Spinal Epidural, and Dural Puncture Epidural Techniques for Labor Analgesia

Background: Lumbar epidural analgesia is a safe, effective, and beneficial technique for both the parturient and the fetus. Dural puncture epidural has been claimed to be better than combined spinal epidural and epidural techniques by many. We undertook this study to compare the three techniques regarding duration, quality of analgesia, and side effects. Debate regarding the best neuraxial technique for labor analgesia continues. Materials and Methods: The parturients of ASA grade I and II of age group 20–35 years were randomly divided into three groups of 20 each. Group E (epidural group) received 15 ml of 0.125% isobaric levobupivacaine with 30 µg fentanyl in the epidural space. Group CSE (combined spinal epidural group) received 2.5 mg of intrathecal isobaric levobupivacaine with 25 µg fentanyl and epidural top up of 15 ml of 0.125% levobupivacaine with 30 µg fentanyl. Group DPE (dural puncture epidural group) received 15 ml of 0.125% isobaric levobupivacaine with 30 µg fentanyl in epidural space; intrathecal medication was withheld. Epidural top-up doses were given as per Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Analgesic efficacy, extent of sensory and motor block, maternal and fetal outcome, duration of analgesia, and maternal satisfaction score were compared among three groups and analyzed statistically. Results: The onset and symmetry of sensory blockade and VAS score were better in CSE group. DPE group had better sacral coverage and less asymmetric blockade. Groups CSE and DPE had superior maternal and surgeon satisfaction scores in comparison to group E. Both groups E and DPE provided analgesia with minimal motor blockade and ambulation.

OC-108 THE EFFECT OF COMBINED SPINAL EPIDURAL ANESTHESIA ON SHOULDER PAIN IN LAPAROSCOPIC EXTRAPERITONEAL HERNIA SURGERY

Abstract Background Shoulder pain is a condition that seriously discomforts patients which develops due to peritoneal tear in laparoscopic extra peritoneal hernia repair (TEP) surgeries. Although surgeons generally prefer general anesthesia for the TEP technique, many studies have been carried out for the use of regional anesthesia in recent years. In our study, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of the combined spinal/epidural anesthesia (CSEA) method in order to prevent shoulder pain in the TEP technique. Method The patients which operated with TEP procedure were divided into two groups; SA (Group 1) and CSEA (Group 2). The two patient groups were compared in terms of sex, age, body mass index, duration of surgery, total operation time, patient satisfaction, pain scores, length of hospital stay, adverse effect, intra operative and postoperative complications. Results The number of patients in group 1 was 42 and the group 2 was 40. The mean operation time was recorded as 55.9 and 80.2 minutes in groups 1 and 2 respectively, which was statistically significantly shorter in group 1 (p&amp;lt;0.001). Postoperative pain was significantly less in group 2 for the 4th hour (p&amp;lt;0.0001) and the 12th hour (p: 0.047). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of peritoneal tear (p:0.860). Intra operative and postoperative shoulder pain was significantly less in group 2 (p: 0.038, p:0015 respectively). Conclusion CSEA is an effective and safe anesthesia method in preventing shoulder pain that develops after TEP surgeries.

EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF CONVENTIONAL EPIDURAL VERSUS COMBINED SPINAL EPIDURAL IN PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY: A PROSPECTIVE AND RANDOMIZED CLINICAL STUDY

Objectives: The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of conventional epidural (ED) versus combined spinal epidural (CSE) in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with addition of opiods and dexmedetomidine. Methods: This prospective, randomized, and double-blinded clinical study was conducted in the in patients undergoing PCNL. Group CSE had received CSE anesthesia and Group ED given conventional epidural anesthesia. Time to first rescue analgesic and total dose of rescue analgesic along with hemodynamic parameters were compared up to 24 h. Patient, surgeon satisfaction score, and post-operative complications were also compared. Results: Time from onset of sensory block to first requirement of analgesia was prolonged in group CSE (218.4±18.30 min) as compared to Group ED (210±17.88 min). (p&lt;0.001) Mean time for first rescue analgesia postoperatively was highly significant in group CSE (2.42±0.49) as compared to Group ED (2.08±0.28). (p&lt;0.0001) Total dose of levobupivacaine required was high in Group ED (49.66±7.02) as compared to Group CSE (45.66±3.12). (p&lt;0.001) In Group ED, surgeon score was good in 20 (44.44%) patients and which was highly significant. In Group CSE, surgeon score was excellent in 41 (91.1%) patients and which was highly significant. (p&lt;0.001) Post-operative complications in both the group were comparable (p&gt;0.05). Conclusion: This study concluded that though both the anesthesia techniques are safe and efficient with each having its own benefits. CSE had proven superiority over the epidural technique.

Comparison of the effects of general anesthesia and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia on intraocular pressure in lower extremity surgeries employing pneumatic tourniquets: a randomized clinical trial

Background &amp; Objective: Induction of general anesthesia has been known to raise the intraocular pressure (IOP). The effect is more pronounced at the time of intubation. Similarly, applying pneumatic tourniquets is associated with rise in IOP. We compared the effects of general anesthesia and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) on IOP in lower extremity surgeries employing pneumatic tourniquets.&#x0D; Methodology: A total of 50 patients, aged over 18 y, completed the study. Patients were randomly divided into the general anesthesia group (Group GA) and CSEA group (Group CSE). IOP and hemodynamic parameters including systolic arterial pressure (SAP), diastolic arterial pressure (DAP), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR),were measured at baseline (T0), and after general anesthesia induction (T1), after intubation or after initiation of CSEA (T2), after placement of tourniquet (T3), and on removal of tourniquet (T4).&#x0D; Results: There was no difference in IOP between the groups at T0 (P &gt; 0.05), but it was higher at T2, T3, and T4 in Group CSE than in Group GA (P &lt; 0.05). SAP was only higher in Group CSE at T3 (P &lt; 0.05). İn Group GA IOP at T1, T3, and T4 was lower than that at T0 (P &lt; 0.01) but were similar at T2 and T0 (P &gt; 0.05). SAPs at T1, T3, and T4 were lower than those at T0 (P &lt; 0.05) but were similar to those at T2 and T0 (P &gt; 0.05). İn Group CSE although SAP was lower at T2, T3, and T4 than that at T0 (P &lt; 0.05), IOP at T2 was higher than that at T0 (P &lt; 0.01). IOP was the same at T3, T4, and T0 (P &gt; 0.05).&#x0D; Abbreviations: IOP: intraocular pressure; CSEA: combined spinal-epidural anesthesia; SAP: systolic arterial pressure; DAP: diastolic arterial pressure; MAP: mean arterial pressure&#x0D; Key words: Intraocular Pressure; Anesthesia, Spinal; Anesthesia, General; Anesthesia, combined spinal-epidural; Tourniquet&#x0D; Citation: Yildiz G, Gulec H, Ozayar E, Horasanli E. Comparison of the effects of general anesthesia and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia on intraocular pressure in lower extremity surgeries employing pneumatic tourniquets: a randomized clinical trial. Anaesth. pain intensive care 2023;27(1):09−15&#x0D; DOI: 10.35975/apic.v27i1.2135&#x0D; Received: December 17, 2020; Reviewed: January 27, 2021; Accepted: March 18, 2021

Effect of the method of anesthetic aid on cellular immunity in periprosthetic infection of the hip joint: : a prospective open randomized study

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic infection after primary hip replacement is a serious complication. For the anesthetic support of revision operations, both general and neuroaxial anesthesia methods can be used. The question of choosing an anesthetic aid that, with adequate modulation of the operational stress response, would have a minimal immunosuppressive effect is relevant.&#x0D; AIM: To examine the effect of general and combined spinalepidural anesthesia during revision operations in patients with periprosthetic hip joint infection on the parameters of cellular immunity.&#x0D; MATERIALS AND METHODS: An open prospective randomized study was performed on 25 patients (11 women and 14 men). The patients underwent surgical interventions of revision prosthetics with the replacement of all components of the prosthesis. Group 1 (n=10) underwent general anesthesia (GA), and group 2 (n=15) underwent surgery under combined spinalepidural anesthesia (CSEA). The indices of cellular immunity, namely, CD4+, CD8+, CD4+/CD8+, and B-lymphocytes, were evaluated. Blood sampling was performed in the morning on the day of surgery and then on days 1, 3, 5, and 7 after surgery.&#x0D; RESULTS: The CD4+ (%) level in the CSEA group was significantly higher than in the GA group on days 3 and 7 after surgery (p 0.05). Changes in the percentage of CD8+ lymphocytes, the immunoregulatory index, and the percentage of B-lymphocytes between the groups had no statistically significant differences.&#x0D; CONCLUSION: The CD4+ (%) level in the CSEA group was significantly higher than that in the GA group on days 3 and 7 after surgery (p 0.05). Statistically significant differences in the dynamics of CD8+, immunoregulatory index, and B-lymphocytes were not found, which may indicate a lesser effect of the type of anesthesia on these indicators.

Comparison of mean duration of two-segment regression time in patients undergoing lower limb surgery treated with combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia vs. Combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia plus epidural volume extension with saline

Background: Combined spinal-epidural (CSE) anesthesia is a novel technique that decreases the amount of anesthetic required yet with greater anesthetic effect compared to spinal or epidural anesthesia alone. Recent studies showed that epidural volume extension (EVE) with saline further increased the anesthetic effect of this combined approach resulting in longer two-segment regression time. However, literature was scarce in the local context that provides the basis of the present study. Aim: The study focuses on the comparison between the mean duration of two-segment regression time in patients who underwent lower limb surgery treated with CSE and CSE plus EVE with saline. Methods: It was a randomized controlled trial and included 60 patients of both genders who range between 20-60 years. They belong to ASA class I and II and underwent lower limb trauma surgery with CSE anesthesia which were further randomly divided into two treatments groups. The patients of Group-A received EVE in addition to standard CSE while Group-B received standard CSE alone. The outcome variable was the mean two-segment regression time which was compared in these two groups. Results: Mean age of selected patients was 35.75±10.60 years. Study included 35 (58.3%) male and 25 (41.7%) female patients. The mean duration of surgery was 79.65±12.92 minutes while the mean BMI was 27.78±3.25 Kg/m2. Nineteen (31.7%) patients were from ASA Class-I and 41 (68.3%) patients associated with ASA Class-II. The mean two-segment regression time was substantially longer in the CSE plus EVE group as compared to the group receiving CSE alone (83.77±7.56 vs. 59.97±6.22 minutes; p-value&lt;0.001). In these two groups, a statistically important difference was also noted across subgroups based on the age of the patient, gender, BMI, duration of surgery, history of diabetes and ASA status. Conclusion: CSE anesthesia with EVE proved its superiority over the conventional practice of CSE alone in terms of longer mean two-segment regression time in patients with lower limb trauma surgery. Keywords: Combined Spinal-Epidural Anesthesia, Epidural Volume Extension, Two-segment Regression Time

Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia with acupoint injection for labor anesthesia reduces IL-1β/IL-10 ratio in maternal peripheral blood, umbilical cord blood and improves the labor outcomes: A prospective randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThis study aimed to investigate the effects of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) with acupoint injection (AI) on the maternal-fetal expression of interleukin-1β (IL-1β), interleukin-10 (IL-10), analgesia effect, and labor outcomes. MethodsA total of 360 healthy primiparas were randomized into the CSEA+AI group, the CSEA group, the AI group, and the control group (n = 90, each group) according to the labor analgesia methods. ResultsCompared to the CSEA group, the CSEA+AI group had significantly lower visual analog scale (VAS) scores, adverse events, dose of ropivacaine/sufentanil, and shorter labor durations. The IL-1β/IL-10 ratio in maternal peripheral blood and umbilical cord blood was reduced in the CSEA+AI group compared with the CSEA group. ConclusionThe combination of CSEA and AI can reduce the ratio of IL-1β/ IL-10 in maternal peripheral blood and umbilical cord blood, which can effectively relieve labor pain.

Comparison of three neuraxial anesthesia approaches in parturient women with obesity and pregnancy-induced hypertension who underwent cesarean section.

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of different approaches of neuraxial anesthesia in parturient women with obesity and pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH) who undergo cesarean section (CS).MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from 108 parturient women with obesity and PIH who underwent CS. All women were divided into the following three groups according to the neuraxial anesthesia approach: spinal anesthesia (SA), epidural anesthesia (EA), and combined spinal–epidural anesthesia (CSE). Clinical variables were compared.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 27.3 ± 2.2 years. Women in the CSE group had a longer duration from puncture to surgery, smaller intraoperative change in mean arterial pressure, higher Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes, shorter surgery time, lower rates of nausea and vomiting, and lower rate of intraoperative hypotension compared with those in the SA and EA groups.ConclusionCSE takes longer to administer in parturient women with obesity and PIH who undergo CS compared with those who have SA or EA. However, CSE has several advantages over SA or EA, including a shorter surgery time, more stable intraoperative mean arterial pressure, lower rates of nausea, vomiting, and intraoperative hypotension, and better Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes.

Maternal Hypotension and Tachysystole Following Neuraxial Anesthesia: Effect on Fetus in Labor.

Maternal Hypotension and Tachysystole Following Neuraxial Anesthesia: Effect on Fetus in Labor.

Comparative analysis of combined spinal epidural and spinal plus single shot femoral nerve block as post-operative analgesia in total knee replacement surgery

Background: Effective anaesthesia is required to overcome complications of epidural anaesthesia and relieve the patients undergoing lower limb surgeries such as total knee replacement from severe pain.&#x0D; Aims and Objective: The current study was aimed to study combined spinal- epidural anaesthesia (CSEA) and spinal plus single shot femoral nerve block (SSFNB) for post-operative analgesia in total knee replacement surgeries.&#x0D; Materials and Methods: This prospective observational and randomized study included 60 subjects undergoing Total knee replacement which were randomized into two groups and administered combined spinal epidural block and single shot femoral nerve block as per standardised protocol for post-operative pain management. Pain as per visual analogue scale and need of rescue analgesia and other haemodynamic parameters were compared between two groups and at different time interval.&#x0D; Result: Two study groups were found to be matched for age, gender, weigh, height and ASA grading. SSFNB group showed significantly high VAS score at 6 Hr, need for rescue analgesia, compared to CSEA group. CSEA group had significantly high number of patients with motor block. significant difference in the variation of pulse rate was observed within both the groups. Significantly higher systolic blood pressure at 6h, 12h, 24h and 36h., diastolic blood pressure at 6h, 24h and 48h and in mean arterial pressure at 6h, 24h and 36 h was observed in SSFNB group compared to CSEA group.&#x0D; Conclusion: We concluded that, patients undergoing total knee replacement show better analgesia and hemodynamic stability with CSEA in comparison to SSFNB, but at the cost of more motor blockade on non-operative limb and delayed recovery.

A randomized comparison of epidural, dural puncture epidural, and combined spinal-epidural without intrathecal opioids for labor analgesia.

Background and Aims:Dural puncture epidural (DPE) has been shown to improve labor analgesia over epidural (EPL), with fewer side effects than a combined spinal-epidural (CSE). However, there is some debate regarding the superiority of DPE over EPL and CSE. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effects of EPL, DPE, and CSE without intrathecal opioids on the epidural local anesthetic (LA) consumption and occurrence of side effects in early labor.Material and Methods:We randomly assigned parturient to one of the 3 groups; EPL, DPE, or CSE. EPL and DPE groups received a 10 mL loading dose of 0.1% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 μg/mL. CSE group received intrathecal 2.5 mg bupivacaine (without opioids). Labor analgesia was maintained in all patients via patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). The primary outcome was the mean hourly consumption of epidural LA.Results:The mean hourly consumption of epidural LA anesthetic was significantly lower in CSE (9.55 mL), compared with the EPL (11 mL), and DPE (10.5 mL), P < 0.01; but no significant difference was seen between EPL and DPE. Compared with EPL and DPE, CSE achieved faster time to complete analgesia defined as a numeric rating pain scale (NRPS) ≤1 and sensory block, lower NRPS in the first hour and higher frequencies of complete analgesia. There were no differences between groups in terms of physician top-up boluses, the occurrence of side-effects, mode of delivery, Apgar scores, and maternal satisfaction.Conclusion:Compared with EPL and DPE, CSE without intrathecal opioids, had a less epidural LA consumption, faster onset of analgesia, with no difference in the incidence of side effects.Trial Registration:This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03980951).

Comparison of epidural technique with combined spinal epidural technique for labor analgesia

Introduction: For pain relief during labor, regional analgesia is considered the most preferred technique; nevertheless the best method is yet to be determined. We carried out a randomized study to assess efficacy, safety & maternal satisfaction with standard epidural and combined spinal epidural (CSE) analgesia technique among 40 primigarvida. Materials and Methods: Healthy primigarvida in labor having cervical dilatation between 3 to 5 cm were assigned randomly to receive either epidural or CSE for labor analgesia. Analgesia was established in Epidural group with 12ml of 0.0625% bupivacaine added with 2µg/ml fentanyl & in CSE group with intrathecal injection of 2.5mg 0.5% heavy bupivacaine plus fentanyl 25µg (total 2 ml). In both groups whenever patient’s VAS>3, 2nd dose was given in form of epidural bolus 10ml 0.0625% bupivacaine + 2µg/ml fentanyl, followed by infusion of same concentration at 8 ml/h. Results: The onset of labor analgesia was significantly faster in CSE group (5.5±1.9 vs. 13±5.9 minutes, p

Comparison of the labor curves with and without combined spinal-epidural analgesia in nulliparous women- a retrospective study

BackgroundNeuraxial labor analgesia is known to increase the rate of instrumental delivery and prolong the second stage of labor; however, there is no standard method to evaluate the progress of labor under analgesia. Friedman curve is considered the gold standard for evaluating the progress of labor. However, it included not only neuraxial labor analgesia but also labor without analgesia. Thus we compared the labor curves of primiparous women undergoing labor with and without neuraxial labor analgesia, to understand the progress of labor in both groups and to arrive at a standard curve to monitor the progress of labor under neuraxial analgesia.MethodsPrimiparous women with cephalic singleton pregnancies who delivered at term from 2016 to 2017 were included. Two hundred patients who opted for combined spinal-epidural (CSE) labor analgesia were included in the CSE group and 200 patients who did not undergo CSE were included in the non-CSE group. In all, 400 cases were examined retrospectively. The evaluation parameters were cervical dilation and fetal station, and we calculated the average value per hour to plot the labor curves.ResultsThe labor curve of the non-CSE group was significantly different from the Friedman curve. In the CSE group, the time from 4 cm dilation of the cervix to full dilation was 15 h; in addition, the speed of cervical dilation was different from that in the non-CSE group. The progress of labor in the CSE group was faster than that in the non-CSE group during the latent phase; however, the progress in the CSE group was slower than that in the non-CSE group during the active phase.ConclusionsNeuraxial labor analgesia results in early cervical dilation and descent of the fetal head; thus, appropriate advance planning to manage the delivery may be essential.

COMBINED SPINAL EPIDURAL ANAESTHESIA VERSUS EPIDURAL ANAESTHESIA: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Background: Regional anaesthesia are widely utilized in surgical gynaecology practice. The Com­bined Spinal Epidural Anaesthesia (CSEA) technique and Continuous epidural anaesthesia both have been extensively used in elective gynaecological surgeries. This prospective cross-sectional comparative study was designed to compare the quality of anaesthesia between CSEA and Epi­dural anaesthesia.&#x0D; Methods: Sixty-four patients between age group 15- 65 years of ASA grade I, II were randomly di­vided into 2 groups. Group A patients received CSEA using “double needle double interspace tech­nique” and were given 2.5 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal block. Group B patients received epidural block with catheter using 10 ml of 0.5% plain bupivacaine. In all patients, subse­quent dosage of 2 ml per unblocked segment 0.5% plain bupivacaine was administered through the epidural catheter to achieve a block up to T4-5. Mean was calculated using t-test, median with Mann Whitney U test and Chi-square test where appropriate and the Statistical Analysis was done using SPSS program, version 11.0.&#x0D; Results: The surgical anaesthesia and motor blockade occurred significantly early in CSEA group. Duration of analgesia was significantly shorter in CSEA (84.1±40.6 min) as compared to epidural group (138.6±32.9 min). The total amount of bupivacaine required to attain the same target level was two times in epidural group (p&lt;0.05). Haemodynamic changes were comparable in both the groups. No neurological side effects were observed.&#x0D; Conclusions: Sequential CSEA is superior alternative to epidural block, which combines the advan­tages of spinal and epidural while minimizing their drawbacks in elective gynaecological surgeries.&#x0D;

Combined spinal epidural anaesthesia versus epidural anaesthesia: a comparative study

Background: Regional anaesthesia are widely utilized in surgical gynaecology practice. The Com­bined Spinal Epidural Anaesthesia (CSEA) technique and Continuous epidural anaesthesia both have been extensively used in elective gynaecological surgeries. This prospective cross-sectional comparative study was designed to compare the quality of anaesthesia between CSEA and Epi­dural anaesthesia.&#x0D; Methods: Sixty-four patients between age group 15- 65 years of ASA grade I, II were randomly di­vided into 2 groups. Group A patients received CSEA using “double needle double interspace tech­nique” and were given 2.5 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal block. Group B patients received epidural block with catheter using 10 ml of 0.5% plain bupivacaine. In all patients, subse­quent dosage of 2 ml per unblocked segment 0.5% plain bupivacaine was administered through the epidural catheter to achieve a block up to T4-5. Mean was calculated using t-test, median with Mann Whitney U test and Chi-square test where appropriate and the Statistical Analysis was done using SPSS program, version 11.0.&#x0D; Results: The surgical anaesthesia and motor blockade occurred significantly early in CSEA group. Duration of analgesia was significantly shorter in CSEA (84.1±40.6 min) as compared to epidural group (138.6±32.9 min). The total amount of bupivacaine required to attain the same target level was two times in epidural group (p&lt;0.05). Haemodynamic changes were comparable in both the groups. No neurological side effects were observed.&#x0D; Conclusions: Sequential CSEA is superior alternative to epidural block, which combines the advan­tages of spinal and epidural while minimizing their drawbacks in elective gynaecological surgeries.

Effects of different analgesic methods used for vaginal delivery on mothers and fetuses

Background/aimKnowledge regarding pain relief during labor remains insufficient. We aimed to determine and compare the effectiveness and safety of epidural analgesia, combined spinal–epidural analgesia, and parenteral meperidine on both mothers and fetuses.Materials and methods This study was designed as an observational case-control study. We collected prospective data from patients whose labor pain management was conducted with meperidine in addition to retrospective cohort data of neuraxial methods; 138 patients were enrolled. Epidural analgesia group consisted of 68 patients, whereas combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia group and meperidine group consisted of 50 and 20 patients, respectively. We compared the delivery patterns, labor durations, pain levels, side effects, maternal satisfaction levels, and neonatal outcomes of the various pain management methods. Results Patient demographics, duration of first, second, and third labor stages, and instrumental delivery rates were comparable among groups (P > 0.05). Cesarean section tended to be less frequent in the CSE group. In the meperidine group, visual analog scale (VAS) values and sedation were significantly higher (P < 0.001) and maternal satisfaction lower (P < 0.001). Hypotension tended to be more frequent in the meperidine group. APGAR scores at the 1st and 5th min were similar among the groups and between meperidine subgroups defined by three different administration times (<1 h, 1‒4 h, ≥4 h; P > 0.05).Conclusion Neuraxial methods had no effect on instrumental delivery rates. CSE represented a near significant risk reduction in cesarean section. Our results demonstrated that regional analgesia methods were reasonably safe for both mother and fetus, and regional analgesia methods resulted in greater maternal satisfaction and pain control compared to meperidine.

Our New Choice in Labour Analgesia, Combined Spinal-Epidural Analgesia: Our Short Term Results

Objective: Nowadays, the painless childbirth preference of expectant mothers is gradually increasing. The most important and first objective in labor analgesia should be the safety of mother and baby. Our objective in this study is to compare the effects of combined spinal-epidural analgesia (CSE) and epidural analgesia on analgesia quality and labor in labour analgesia.Methods: Our study was performed prospectively on 40 primigravid pregnant women who requested painless childbirth and were included in the ASAI-II group, between September 1, 2018, and November 30, 2018. Pregnant women who had single fetus at 36-42 weeks, have vertex presentation, no contraindications for regional analgesia, have active contractions and with 3-4 cm cervical opening were randomly divided into two groups in the study. Combined Spino Epidural group (= Group CSE, n = 20), Epidural analgesia group (= Group EPI, n = 20) was determined as the groups. To the pregnant women in the Group CSE, Intrathecal dose in a manner that 2.5 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine + 12.5 µg fentanyl total volume of 1 ml was injected. To the pregnant women in the Group EPI, 20 G epidural catheter was placed with the method used in the first group and fixed to the skin. Epidural analgesia solutions (20 mg bupivacaine + 50 µg fentanyl +15 cc saline) were prepared in 20 cc injectors containing 0.1% bupivacaine + 2.5 µg/ml fentanyl for use in both groups. When the VAS values became 4, these prepared solutions were planned to be given as 10 ml intermittent bolus from these epidural catheters.Results: The mean values of maternal age, weight, and height, and infant height have not shown any difference according to the groups (p&amp;gt; 0.05). The first VAS median value was obtained as 5 in both groups. However, the VAS values were accumulated in the higher values in the combined spinal-epidural group (p = 0.031). Although the second VRS and VAS median values were lower in the pure epidural, the outlet VRS and VAS values have been obtained lower in the combined spinal-epidural group. Conclusion: For normal spontaneous vaginal delivery, every mother should be offered labour analgesia options such as CSE analgesia and epidural analgesia. CSE analgesia may be a good alternative to epidural analgesia because of its advantages such as the onset of fast analgesia, shortening the first stage of labour and increasing the comfort of the mother in the outlet.

Effect of subarachnoid anesthesia combined with propofol target-controlled infusion on blood loss and transfusion for posterior total hip arthroplasty in elderly patients.

Intravertebral and general anesthesia (GA) are two main anesthesia approaches but both have defects. This study was aimed to evaluate the effect of subarachnoid anesthesia combined with propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) on blood loss and transfusion for total hip arthroplasty (THA) in elderly patients in comparison with combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) or GA. Totally, 240 patients (aged ≥65 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] I-III) scheduled for posterior THA were enrolled from September 1st, 2017 to March 1st, 2018. All cases were randomly divided into three groups to receive CSEA (group C, n = 80), GA (group G, n = 80), or subarachnoid anesthesia and propofol TCI (group T, n = 80), respectively. Primary outcomes measured were intra-operative blood loss, autologous and allogeneic blood transfusion, mean arterial pressure at different time points, length of stay in post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), length of hospital stay, and patient satisfaction degree. Furthermore, post-operative pain scores and complications were also observed. The difference of quantitative index between groups were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance, repeated measurement generalized linear model, Student-Newman-Keuls test or rank-sum test, while ratio index was analyzed by Chi-square test or Fisher exact test. Basic characteristics were comparable among the three groups. Intra-operative blood loss in group T (331.53 ± 64.33 mL) and group G (308.03 ± 64.90 mL) were significantly less than group C (455.40 ± 120.48 mL, F = 65.80, P < 0.001). Similarly, the autologous transfusion of group T (130.99 ± 30.36 mL) and group G (124.09 ± 24.34 mL) were also markedly less than group C (178.31 ± 48.68 mL, F = 52.99, P < 0.001). The allogenetic blood transfusion of group C (0 [0, 100.00]) was also significantly larger than group T (0) and group G (0) (Z = 2.47, P = 0.047). Except for the baseline, there were significant differences in mean arterial blood pressures before operation (F = 496.84, P < 0.001), 10-min after the beginning of operation (F = 351.43, P < 0.001), 30-min after the beginning of operation (F = 559.89, P < 0.001), 50-min after the beginning of operation (F = 374.74, P < 0.001), and at the end of operation (F = 26.14, P < 0.001) among the three groups. Length of stay in PACU of group T (9.41 ± 1.19 min) was comparable with group C (8.83 ± 1.26 min), and both were significantly shorter than group G (16.55 ± 3.10 min, F = 352.50, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences among the three groups in terms of length of hospitalization and post-operative visual analog scale scores. Patient satisfaction degree of group T (77/80) was significantly higher than group C (66/80, χ = 7.96, P = 0.004) and G (69/80, χ = 5.01, P = 0.025). One patient complained of post-dural puncture headache and two complained of low back pain in group C, while none in group T. Incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting in group G (10/80) was significantly higher than group T (3/80, χ = 4.10, P = 0.043) and group C (2/80, χ = 5.76, P = 0.016). No deep vein thrombosis or delayed post-operative functional exercise was detected. Single subarachnoid anesthesia combined with propofol TCI seems to perform better than CSEA and GA for posterior THA in elderly patients, with less blood loss and peri-operative transfusion, higher patient satisfaction degree and fewer complications. chictr.org.cn: ChiCTR-IPR-17013461; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=23024.