BACKGROUNDBupivacaine is a long-acting amide and is widely used as local anaesthetic for epidural anaesthesia. It has a beneficial ratio of sensory to motor block in epidural anaesthesia. This agent also provides high quality analgesia in the post-operative period. However, bupivacaine-induced cardiotoxicity in patients following accidental intravascular injection limits its use. It also has potential for neurotoxicity. Sudden cardiac deaths and high proportion of maternal deaths are reported. 1 Therefore, a local anaesthetic which has similar effects as bupivacaine but has less side effects on cardiovascular system is needed. Levobupivacaine is the pure S (-) enantiomer of racemic bupivacaine. It seems to be an alternative safer local anaesthetic agent in epidural anaesthesia. 1 The purpose of this study was to compare levobupivacaine and bupivacaine in epidural with Fentanyl as a common adjuvant for lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries. MATERIALS AND METHODSA prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled study was planned. 80 patients of ASA I and II, physical status aged between 18 -60 yrs. who underwent elective infraumbilical and lower limb surgery from 1 st January 2014 to 31 st December 2014, and satisfying all the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study and were randomly allocated into two groups. Group F + B (n= 40)= patients received 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine 13 mL with fentanyl 100 µg (2 mL) in epidural. Group F + L (n= 40)= patients received 0.5% isobaric levobupivacaine 13 mL with fentanyl 100 µg (2 mL) in epidural. The two groups were compared for sensory blockade, motor blockade and the haemodynamic parameters. Group allocated to the patient was revealed at the end of study. RESULTSMean time taken for complete loss of cutaneous sensation at T10 for F + L group was 4.68 min and F + B group was 6.75 min which was statistically significant, (p= 0.0001). Maximum motor blockade was better with F + B group and the mean time for regression to Bromage 1 for F + B group was 119.88 min and F + L group was 111.13 showing a prolonged motor blockade with F + B group (p= 0.0037). Haemodynamic parameters were comparable for the two groups. CONCLUSIONThe onset of sensory blockade was faster with F + L group. F + B group produced denser and prolonged motor blockade. Haemodynamic profile was comparable with the two groups. Levobupivacaine can be a good alternative to bupivacaine, the faster onset of sensory blockade, the smaller rate of motor blockade and the trend towards a smaller duration of motor blockade shows an interesting and potentially useful difference. KEYWORDSBupivacaine, Levobupivacaine, Fentanyl, Epidural, Motor Blockade. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Hungund S, Hirolli DA, Bhosale R, et al. Comparison of epidural-fentanyl and levobupivacaine with fentanyl and bupivacaine for lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries-a prospective study.
Management of homicidal cut-throat injuries requires a multi-disciplinary approach. The role of an anesthesiologist in instituting an airway using an endotracheal intubation or tracheostomy before wound exploration and repair of transected tissues, is challenging, as, such injuries are most of the time associated with distortion of the normal anatomy of the airway. We hereby report a case of 60-year-old lady diagnosed as homicidal cut-throat injury with vocal cords exposed externally and injury of thyroid cartilage and pharyngeal muscles. Patients with cut-throat injury may present with airway compromise, aspiration, and acute blood loss with hypoxemia because of injury to the airway and major vessels. Securing an airway becomes the first priority in patients with cut-throat injuries. It could be done by an endotracheal intubation, cricothyroidotomy, or by an emergency tracheostomy. For the effective management of patients with a cut-throat injury, there is a need for a multidisciplinary approach by a team consisting of an otorhinolaryngologist, anesthesiologist, and a psychiatrist.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.