Comparison of Oral versus Intramuscular Clonidine for the Prolongation of Bupivacaine Spinal Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Lower Abdominal and Lower Limb Surgeries.

Anesthesia, Essays and Researches Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-06-29 DOI:10.4103/aer.aer_31_22
Raj Bahadur Singh, Saurav Shekhar, Ranjeet Rana De, Siddharth Singh, Ritu Singh, Akrity Singh
{"title":"Comparison of Oral versus Intramuscular Clonidine for the Prolongation of Bupivacaine Spinal Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Lower Abdominal and Lower Limb Surgeries.","authors":"Raj Bahadur Singh,&nbsp;Saurav Shekhar,&nbsp;Ranjeet Rana De,&nbsp;Siddharth Singh,&nbsp;Ritu Singh,&nbsp;Akrity Singh","doi":"10.4103/aer.aer_31_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Spinal subarachnoid block (SAB) is the first choice anesthesia in lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries. It produces a varying degree of sensory analgesia, motor blockade, and sympathetic blockade depending on the dose, concentration, and volume of the local anesthetic given. This study was undertaken to assess the degree of sensory and motor block with 150 μg of oral versus intramuscular clonidine as an adjuvant to bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia.</p><p><strong>Aims and objective: </strong>To compare the efficacy of oral versus intramuscular clonidine as an adjuvant to bupivacaine for the prolongation of sensory and motor block in patients undergoing lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries under SAB.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>After institutional ethical clearance, 90 patients were randomized into three groups scheduled for lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries under spinal anesthesia. • Group O: Bupivacaine 0.5% (heavy) 3.0 mL and oral clonidine 150 μg 1 h before spinal anesthesia. • Group I: Bupivacaine 0.5% (heavy) 3.0 mL and intramuscular clonidine 150 μg 1 h before spinal anesthesia. • Group C: Control group - 3 mL bupivacaine 0.5% (heavy) alone.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>The onset of sensory block in Group O was 4.9 ± 0.52 min, whereas in Group I, it was 4.6 ± 0.42 min than Group C (5.1 ± 0.60). Onset of motor block was also significantly lower in Group O and Group I (3.9 ± 0.53 and 3.7 ± 0.42 min) than in Group C (4.4 ± 0.6 min) which was a control group. There was also a significant difference in the duration of the sensory block between Group O (206.4 ± 9.2 min), Group I (219 ± 8.6 min), and Group C (184.3 ± 9.1 min). The duration of motor block was significantly higher in Group O (183.6 ± 8.2 min) and Group I (197.8 ± 9.6 min) when compared to Group C (162.8 ± 8.9 min). The timing of rescue analgesia in Group O was 222.4 ± 11.7 min, whereas in Group I, it was 243.46 ± 10.9.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>On the basis of finding of our study, we conclude that the use of clonidine as a premedication at a dose of 150 μg significantly increased the duration of sensory block, motor block, and duration of analgesia and shortened the time of onset of sensory and motor blockade.</p>","PeriodicalId":7798,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches","volume":"16 1","pages":"104-108"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9558664/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aer.aer_31_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Spinal subarachnoid block (SAB) is the first choice anesthesia in lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries. It produces a varying degree of sensory analgesia, motor blockade, and sympathetic blockade depending on the dose, concentration, and volume of the local anesthetic given. This study was undertaken to assess the degree of sensory and motor block with 150 μg of oral versus intramuscular clonidine as an adjuvant to bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia.

Aims and objective: To compare the efficacy of oral versus intramuscular clonidine as an adjuvant to bupivacaine for the prolongation of sensory and motor block in patients undergoing lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries under SAB.

Materials and methods: After institutional ethical clearance, 90 patients were randomized into three groups scheduled for lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries under spinal anesthesia. • Group O: Bupivacaine 0.5% (heavy) 3.0 mL and oral clonidine 150 μg 1 h before spinal anesthesia. • Group I: Bupivacaine 0.5% (heavy) 3.0 mL and intramuscular clonidine 150 μg 1 h before spinal anesthesia. • Group C: Control group - 3 mL bupivacaine 0.5% (heavy) alone.

Result: The onset of sensory block in Group O was 4.9 ± 0.52 min, whereas in Group I, it was 4.6 ± 0.42 min than Group C (5.1 ± 0.60). Onset of motor block was also significantly lower in Group O and Group I (3.9 ± 0.53 and 3.7 ± 0.42 min) than in Group C (4.4 ± 0.6 min) which was a control group. There was also a significant difference in the duration of the sensory block between Group O (206.4 ± 9.2 min), Group I (219 ± 8.6 min), and Group C (184.3 ± 9.1 min). The duration of motor block was significantly higher in Group O (183.6 ± 8.2 min) and Group I (197.8 ± 9.6 min) when compared to Group C (162.8 ± 8.9 min). The timing of rescue analgesia in Group O was 222.4 ± 11.7 min, whereas in Group I, it was 243.46 ± 10.9.

Conclusion: On the basis of finding of our study, we conclude that the use of clonidine as a premedication at a dose of 150 μg significantly increased the duration of sensory block, motor block, and duration of analgesia and shortened the time of onset of sensory and motor blockade.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
下腹部和下肢手术患者口服与肌注可乐定延长布比卡因脊髓麻醉时间的比较。
背景:脊髓蛛网膜下腔阻滞(SAB)是下腹部和下肢手术的首选麻醉方式。它产生不同程度的感觉镇痛、运动阻滞和交感阻滞,这取决于局部麻醉剂的剂量、浓度和体积。本研究旨在评估150 μg口服可乐定与肌肉注射可乐定作为布比卡因脊髓麻醉辅助剂对感觉和运动阻滞的程度。目的和目的:比较口服与肌注可乐定辅助布比卡因延长下腹部和下肢SAB手术患者感觉和运动阻滞的效果。材料与方法:90例患者经机构伦理审查后,随机分为三组,分别在脊髓麻醉下进行下腹部和下肢手术。O组:布比卡因0.5%(重)3.0 mL,脊髓麻醉前1 h口服可乐定150 μg。•第一组:腰麻前1 h布比卡因0.5%(重)3.0 mL,肌注可乐定150 μg。•C组:对照组:单独使用0.5%布比卡因(重)3ml。结果:O组感觉阻滞发生时间为4.9±0.52 min, I组为4.6±0.42 min,明显优于C组(5.1±0.60)min。运动阻滞发作时间(3.9±0.53 min)明显低于对照组C组(4.4±0.6 min)。感觉阻滞持续时间O组(206.4±9.2 min)、I组(219±8.6 min)和C组(184.3±9.1 min)也有显著差异。运动阻滞持续时间O组(183.6±8.2 min)和I组(197.8±9.6 min)明显高于C组(162.8±8.9 min)。O组抢救镇痛时间为222.4±11.7 min, I组为243.46±10.9 min。结论:在本研究的基础上,我们得出150 μg剂量的可乐定可显著增加感觉阻滞持续时间、运动阻滞持续时间和镇痛持续时间,缩短感觉阻滞和运动阻滞发生时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A comparison of two prophylactic doses of ephedrine to attenuate the hemodynamic responses in adults receiving propofol in general anesthesia; a South Indian perspective Comparison of hemodynamic stability with continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring and intermittent oscillometric blood pressure monitoring in hospitalized patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis Thoracic epidural analgesia vs. intravenous analgesia in blunt thoracic trauma patients, managed conservatively with noninvasive ventilation (NIV): A prospective observational study Comparison of postoperative analgesic effects of gelfoam soaked with ropivacaine 0.5% and gelfoam soaked with dexamethasone 8 mg with placebo in single-level lumbar laminectomy A Randomised Control Study Comparing C-MAC D-Blade Video Laryngoscope (Hyper Angulated Blade) and Macintosh Laryngoscope for Insertion of a Double-Lumen Tube in Patients Undergoing Elective Thoracotomy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1