SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.56 issue6Comparison among three techniques of postoperative regional analgesia with ropivacaine in childrenNeurological complications and damage of regional block in children under general anesthesia: a real problem or sporadic cases? author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia

Print version ISSN 0034-7094

Abstract

IMBELLONI, Luiz Eduardo et al. Hypobaric 0.15% bupivacaine versus hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine for posterior (dorsal) spinal block in outpatient anorectal surgery. Rev. Bras. Anestesiol. [online]. 2006, vol.56, n.6, pp. 571-582. ISSN 0034-7094.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-70942006000600002.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to study low dose hypobaric 0.15% bupivacaine and hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine in outpatient anorectal surgical procedures. METHODS: Two groups of 50 patients, physical status ASA I and II, undergoing anorectal surgical procedures in a jackknife position, received 6 mg of hypobaric 0.15% bupivacaine in the surgical position (Group 1) or 6 mg of hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine in the sitting position for 5 minutes, after which they were placed in a jackknife position (Group 2). Sensitive and motor blockade, time of first urination, ambulation, complications, and the need for analgesics were evaluated. Patients were followed until the third postoperative day and questioned whether they experienced post-puncture headache or temporary neurological symptoms, and until the 30th day and questioned about permanent neurological complications. The test t Student, Mood's median, and Fisher Exact test were used for statistical analysis, and a p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Every patient in Group 1 presented selective blockade of the posterior sacral nerve roots, while patients in Group 2 experienced blockade of the anterior and posterior nerve roots. Blockade was significantly higher in Group 1. Motor blockade was significantly less severe in Group 1. Forty-nine patients in Group 1 transferred to the stretcher unassisted while only 40 patients in Group 2 were able to do so. Recovery in Group 1 occurred in 105 ± 25 minutes and in 95 ± 15 minutes in Group 2, and this difference was not statistically significant. There were no hemodynamic changes, nausea or vomiting, urine retention, or post-puncture headache. CONCLUSIONS: Anorectal surgical procedures under spinal block with low dose bupivacaine, hyperbaric or hypobaric, can be safely done.

Keywords : ANESTHETICS, Local [bupivacaine]; ANESTHETIC TECHNIQUES, Regional [hypobaric spinal block]; SURGERY [Proctologic].

        · abstract in Portuguese | Spanish     · text in English | Portuguese     · pdf in English | Portuguese