Comparison Of Anesthetic Effects Research Articles

Comparison of anesthetic effect of ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine and clonidine in patients undergoing lower limb surgery: A prospective study

Comparison of anesthetic effect of ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine and clonidine in patients undergoing lower limb surgery: A prospective study

Comparison of anesthetic effect of ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine and clonidine in patients undergoing lower limb surgery: A prospective study

Comparison of anesthetic effect of ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine and clonidine in patients undergoing lower limb surgery: A prospective study

Comparison of anesthetic effects between ropivacaine and levobupivacaine in cesarean section

Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy of ropivacaine and levobupivacaine in epidural anesthesia for cesarean section. Methods 80 full-term nulliparous women for cesarean section were randomly divided into two groups:patients received 0.75% ropivacaine(ropivacaine group,n=40)and 0.75% levobupivacaine (levobupivacaine group,n=40).Sensory and motor block,umbilical venous blood gas analysis,and Apgar score of the neonates were investigated. Results There was no significant differences in the parameters about sensory block and motor block,Apgar score and umbilical venous blood gas analysis between the two groups(P ＞ 0.05).The side effect was lower in the ropivacaine group(P＜0.05). Conclusion Epidural anesthesia with 0.75% ropivacaine and 0.75% levobupivacaine for cesarean section could produce equivalent clinical effects.Both of them had a good prospeet for clinical application. Key words: Levobupivacaine; Ropivacaine; Anesthesia

確実なけん鞘内注入法−基節骨上けん鞘内注入法−

We report a study which shows that the traditional transthecal injection technique provides poor correctness but stable anesthetic effects. We investigated whether a small quantity of anesthetic is effective or leakage into the subcutaneous tissue is effective. Accurate transthecal injection technique was necessary to examine how the technique affects transthecal digital block. An injection study using contrast medium and lidocaine was performed on the middle fingers of healthy volunteers. Our new transthecal injection technique involved inserting a needle at the palmophalangeal crease, penetrated the flexor tendon to the proximal phalanx, without withdrawing the needle during injection. We believe that the success rate of traditional transthecal injection technique is very low due to the use of loss of resistance by withdrawing the needle. This technique allows comparison of anesthetic effects between the transthecal digital block and subucutaneous digital block.

Comparison of anesthetic effect between 0.375% ropivacaine versus 0.5% lidocaine in forearm intravenous regional anesthesia

Comparison of anesthetic effect between 0.375% ropivacaine versus 0.5% lidocaine in forearm intravenous regional anesthesia

Comparison of anesthetic effect between 0.375% ropivacaine versus 0.5% lidocaine in forearm intravenous regional anesthesia

Background and Objectives: Ropivacaine was shown to provide superior postblock analgesia to lidocaine in intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) in voluntary studies. The objective of this study was to compare the anesthesia efficacy, postblock analgesia, and local anesthetic-related side effects between ropivacaine and lidocaine when forearm IVRA was used. Methods: Fifty-one patients undergoing outpatient hand surgery were randomized to receive forearm IVRA with either ropivacaine 0.375% or lidocaine 0.5%. The volume was 0.4 mL/kg up to 25 mL. Sensation to pinching by forceps and motor function was assessed at 5-minute intervals up to 15 minutes. After tourniquet deflation, verbal pain rating score (VRPS) at 15-minute intervals for the first 2 hours and time for first analgesic in the first 24 hours were evaluated. Results: Eleven patients were excluded from the study with 20 patients remaining in each group. Onset time of anesthesia (6.5 ± 2.9 minutes v 8.0 ± 4.1 minutes for lidocaine and ropivacaine groups, respectively) and motor block were similar. In the postoperative period, VPRS was significantly lower in the ropivacaine group in the first 60 minutes (median, 0; P < .05) with significantly more patients in the ropivacaine group pain free (VPRS, 0) up to the first 90 minutes (P > .05). More patients in lidocaine group requested analgesic in the first 2 hours postblock, and only patients in the lidocaine group required supplemental IV morphine in the recovery room. Twenty-four hour analgesic consumption was the same. No local anesthetic-related side effects were observed. Conclusions: We conclude that 0.375% ropivacaine provides effective anesthesia and superior postoperative analgesia compared with 0.5% lidocaine when forearm IVRA is used. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2002;27:595-599.

Comparison of anesthetic effects of epidural and intravenous administration of buprenorphine during operation.

Thirty six patients were received epidural anesthesia with or without buprenorphine (BPN) during upper abdominal surgery. They were divided into three groups of 12 patients as follows; G-I received 20 ml of 1% lidocaine epidurally, G-II received 20 ml of 1% lidocaine epidurally and 0.6 mg BPN intravenously, G-III received 20 ml of 1% lidocaine with 0.6 mg BPN epidurally. Additional 5 ml of 1% lidocaine was given to any patient if systolic blood pressure or heart rate increased 10% compared to control value. Trachea was intubated following anesthetic induction with thiopental. The lungs were ventilated with a mixture of N(2)O/O(2) (33%) and pancuronium was used for muscle relaxation. The total required doses of lidocaine in G-II and G-III were decreased 60% compared to control group (G-I) ( P < 0.05). The mean period of time until the first administration of pentazocine for postoperative pain was 13 +/- 10 hr (mean +/- SD) in G-II and 19 +/- 24 hr in G-III compared to 5 +/- 4 hr in G-I ( P << 0.001). The dose of the administration of pentazocine that was required for pain relief during the first 48 postoperative hr in G-III was 54 +/- 10 mg (mean +/- SD) compared to 150 +/- 21 mg in G-I ( P < 0.02) and 106 +/- 28 mg in G-II ( P < 0.05). Recovery from anesthesia in G-III was more rapid than that in G-I ( P < 0.05). The Pa(CO)(2) values in G-II and G-III increased 15% compared to control group at about 4 hr and 8 hr after administration of BPN, but any clinical treatment was not needed for them. Nonrespiratory side effects, e.g., nausea, vomiting, fatigue and headache, were comparably common in all groups. Mild hematuria associated with acute hypotension occurred in two patients in G-II (17%) immediately after the intravenous injection of 0.6 mg of BPN. The results showed that 0.6 mg of BPN given epidurally demonstrated better anesthetic and more potent postoperative analgesic effects and lesser side effects than 0.6 mg of BPN given intravenously in patients undergoing upper abdominal surgery.