<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> There is high prevalence of psychiatric illness after major limb amputation and need for early recognition and treatment should be the goal but often is overlooked. Psychological support by the treating physician and the surgeon can help in adaptation to the disability but unfortunately is often overlooked.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> A total of 120 patients were screened for psychiatric disorder using HADS criteria Anxiety was found to be in 38 (32%) patients and depression was found to be in 27 (23%) (Table 1) (Figure 1) 55 patients had no psychiatric illness. Psychiatric illness either depression or anxiety was found to be in 65 patients.<strong></strong></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> In our state which is a zone of conflict between two countries prevalence of anxiety was 32% and depressive symptoms were 23%, respectively. Causative factors associated with high prevalence of psychological symptoms included unmarried young females, lower socioeconomic status, single earning member, lack of social support, unemployment, traumatic amputation. These findings were confirmed by a significant reduction of anxiety and depression scores in patients who received social support, patients with amputation due to disease, and patients with above the knee amputation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Our study showed higher prevalence of psychological symptoms in association with lower socioeconomic status, single earning member, lack of social support, unemployment, traumatic amputation vs amputation secondary to chronic disease. Extensive rehabilitation with the use of an interdisciplinary team approach is one of the most successful ways to return the amputee to the work place. Surgeons should give proper attention to the psychological state of amputees. Because of high prevalence of psychiatric illness after major limb amputation. It is suggested that psychiatric evaluation and adequate rehabilitation should form a part of treatment.</p>
BACKGROUNDThe introduction of safe drugs enhanced the popularity of spinal anaesthesia. Lofgren and Lundqvist introduced the most commonly used drug, Lignocaine. One of the disadvantages of Lignocaine was the association with transient neurological symptoms, which presents as low backache and lower extremity dysesthesia. Bupivacaine was introduced by Ekenstam in 1957. It is a well-established long-acting local anaesthetic used for spinal anaesthesia. It has been used frequently in spinal anaesthesia with a very little incidence of transient neurological symptoms. But it is associated with cardiovascular and central nervous system toxicity when used in high concentration or when accidentally administered intravascularly. Ropivacaine was introduced into clinical practice in 1996. It was initially used in epidural anaesthesia in lower extremity surgery, where it was compared with bupivacaine where they concluded that ropivacaine produced similar sensory and motor blockade with less cardiotoxicity. In a study, different concentrations of intrathecal ropivacaine 0.5% and 0.75% were compared for vascular surgery, which concluded that 15 mg of plain ropivacaine 0.75% is effective and safe and gives complete spinal anaesthesia in high risk patients without side effects and cardiovascular modifications.The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the haemodynamic changes and side effects associated with equal volumes of two different doses of ropivacaine hydrochloride (0.75% and 0.5%) used in spinal anaesthesia in lower limb orthopaedic surgeries.
BACKGROUNDCentral neuraxial blockade is a major regional anaesthesia technique with a long history of effective use for a variety of surgical procedures and pain relief. Ropivacaine is an amino-amide local anaesthetic drug, which was first synthesised in 1957 and was introduced into clinical practice in 1996. As there are limited studies on effect of ropivacaine in spinal anaesthesia, we conducted a dose comparison study of ropivacaine in our institute to know the clinical efficacy and safety with regard to better patient profile management.The aim of the study was to compare and evaluate equal volumes of two different doses of ropivacaine hydrochloride (0.75% and 0.5%) in spinal anaesthesia in lower limb orthopaedic surgeries with regard to the onset and duration of sensory and motor blockade.
MATERIALS AND METHODSIt is a prospective, randomised, double-blind study conducted in a tertiary care hospital in which 80 patients of age group 20 -65 years of either sex which were scheduled to undergo lower limb orthopaedic surgeries under spinal anaesthesia with two different doses of Ropivacaine Hydrochloride were included. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups of 40 each. Group A received 22.5 mg (3 mL) of 0.75% isobaric Ropivacaine Hydrochloride. Group B patients received 15 mg (3 mL) of 0.5% isobaric Ropivacaine Hydrochloride.
RESULTSRopivacaine 0.75% produced higher level and longer duration of sensory blockade than ropivacaine 0.5% when used in spinal anaesthesia. Thus, there was longer duration of analgesia with ropivacaine 0.75%. The ropivacaine 0.75% solution resulted in higher frequency and longer duration of motor block in the lower limbs than ropivacaine 0.5%. Thus, a reliable motor blockade was obtained with ropivacaine 0.75%. Therefore, it is concluded that intrathecal ropivacaine 0.75% provides an excellent sensory blockade with longer duration of analgesia and a complete motor block, which makes it suitable for lower limb orthopaedic surgeries requiring an intense sensory and motor blockade.
CONCLUSIONOur study suggests the use of ropivacaine 0.75% for spinal anaesthesia in lower limb orthopaedic surgeries, as it provides prolonged duration of sensory and profound motor blockade of lower limbs.
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.