No abstract

The present study compares the effectiveness of 0.25% ropivacaine and 0.25% bupivacaine in 44 patients receiving a subclavian perivascular brachial plexus block for upper extremity surgery. The patients were assigned to two equal groups in this randomized, double-blind study; one group received ropivacaine 0.25% (112.5 mg) and the other, bupivacaine 0.25% (112.5 mg), both without epinephrine. Onset times for analgesia and anesthesia in each of the C-5 through T-1 brachial plexus dermatomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. The mean onset time for analgesia ranged from 11.2 to 20.2 min, and the mean onset time for anesthesia ranged from 23.3 to 48.2 min. The onset of motor block differed only with respect to paresis in the hand, with bupivacaine demonstrating a shorter onset time than ropivacaine. The duration of sensory and motor block also was not significantly different between the two groups. The mean duration of analgesia ranged from 9.2 to 13.0 h, and the mean duration of anesthesia ranged from 5.0 to 10.2 h. Both groups required supplementation with peripheral nerve blocks or general anesthesia in a large number of cases, with 9 of the 22 patients in the bupivacaine group and 8 of the 22 patients in the ropivacaine group requiring supplementation to allow surgery to begin. In view of the frequent need for supplementation noted with both 0.25% ropivacaine and 0.25% bupivacaine, we do not recommend using the 0.25% concentrations of these local anesthetics to provide brachial plexus block.

No abstract

A new local anaesthetic, ropivacaine hydrochloride, was used in a concentration of 0.5 per cent in 32 patients receiving a subclavian perivascular block for upper extremity surgery. One group (n = 15) received 0.5 per cent ropivacaine without epinephrine and a second group (n = 17) received 0.5 per cent ropivacaine with epinephrine in a concentration of 1:200,000. Anaesthesia was achieved in 87 per cent of the patients in both groups in all of the C5 through T1 brachial plexus dermatomes. Motor block was profound with 100 per cent of patients in both groups developing paresis at both the shoulder and hand and 100 per cent developing paralysis at the shoulder. There was a rapid initial onset of sensory block (a mean of less than four minutes for analgesia) with a prolonged duration (a mean of greater than 13 hr of analgesia). The addition of epinephrine did not significantly affect the quality or onset of sensory or motor block. The duration of sensory block was reduced by epinephrine at T1 for analgesia and at C7, C8, and T1 for anaesthesia. The duration of sensory block in the remaining brachial plexus dermatomes as well as the duration of motor block was not effected by epinephrine. There was no evidence of cardiovascular or central nervous system toxicity in either group with a mean dose of 2.5-2.6 mg.kg-1 ropivacaine.

(CmaO Etait de 1,6 + 0, de 7,7 +-3,6 et 7,0 +-3,4 rag" I hr-t -t (I, 90-3,28 rag. kg-t )

No abstract

No abstract

Administration of alfentanil followed by propofol intravenously (IV) without neuromuscular blockade for induction of anesthesia provides adequate conditions for tracheal intubation. Other hypnotic drugs have not been thoroughly investigated in this regard. Accordingly, 140 ASA physical status I and II premedicated outpatients were randomly assigned to one of seven groups (n = 20/group). Patients in Groups I-VI received alfentanil 40 microg/kg followed by etomidate 0.3 mg/kg, propofol 2 mg/kg, or thiopental 4 mg/kg. One half of these patients (Groups II, IV, VI) also received lidocaine 1 mg/kg IV prior to the administration of the above drugs. Patients in group VII received d-tubocurarine 3 mg followed by thiopental 4 mg/kg and succinylcholine 1 mg/kg. Ninety seconds after induction, laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation were attempted and graded. Patients in Group V (alfentanil/thiopental) were significantly (P < 0.05) more likely to have a clinically unacceptable response to intubation (55%) (e.g., vigorous coughing, purposeful movement, or requirement for succinylcholine to complete intubation) compared with patients who received propofol (35%) or etomidate (20%). Alfentanil/etomidate yielded intubation conditions comparable to those achieved with alfentanil/propofol and d-tubocurarine/thiopental/succinylcholine. Lidocaine appeared to improve intubating conditions, although this improvement did not reach statistical significance. The results suggest that healthy, premedicated patients with favorable airway anatomy who have received alfentanil 40 microg/kg can be reliably tracheally intubated 90 s after administration of propofol 2 mg/kg or etomidate 0.3 mg/kg.