Department of Anesthesiology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL 60153, USA.
J Clin Anesth. 2012 Mar;24(2):109-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2011.06.014. Epub 2012 Feb 17.
To compare isobaric lidocaine and mepivacaine in outpatient arthroscopic surgery.
Prospective, randomized, double-blinded study.
Ambulatory surgery center affiliated with an academic tertiary-care hospital.
84 adult, ASA physical status 1, 2, and 3 ambulatory patients, age 18-70 years, undergoing arthroscopic knee surgery.
Patients were randomized to receive a combination spinal-epidural anesthetic using 80 mg of either isobaric 2% mepivacaine or isobaric 2% lidocaine. Patients also received a femoral 3-in-1 block with 0.5% bupivacaine applied to the affected extremity.
Demographic data and level and duration of the block were recorded. The use of supplemental epidural anesthesia was noted along with frequency of bradycardia, hypotension, and episodes of nausea and vomiting. Duration of block and times to ambulation and voiding were recorded. Delayed variables, including fatigue, difficulty urinating, back pain, and transient neurologic symptoms (TNS) were obtained.
No demographic differences were noted between groups, and surgical duration was similar. Satisfactory anesthesia was achieved in all cases, with no differences noted in hypotension, bradycardia, nausea, or vomiting. Onset of sensory and motor block was similar. Duration of block before epidural supplementation was 94 ± 21 minutes with lidocaine versus 122 ± 23 minutes for mepivacaine (P < 0.011). Times to ambulation and voiding were longer in patients receiving mepivacaine but did not affect PACU stay. Twenty-four and 48-hour recovery was similar with no TNS symptoms reported.
No major differences were noted between lidocaine and mepivacaine spinal anesthesia. Time to ambulation and voiding were longer in patients who received mepivacaine as was time to first dose of epidural catheter. Neither group had TNS symptoms. Lidocaine and mepivacaine are both appropriate spinal anesthetics for ambulatory orthopedic lower extremity procedures.
比较等比重利多卡因和甲哌卡因用于门诊关节镜手术。
前瞻性、随机、双盲研究。
学术型三级医院附属日间手术中心。
84 例年龄 18-70 岁、ASA 分级 1、2、3 的成年门诊患者,接受膝关节镜手术。
患者随机接受 80mg 等比重 2%甲哌卡因或等比重 2%利多卡因的腰硬联合麻醉。患者还接受患侧股神经 3-in-1 阻滞,给予 0.5%布比卡因。
记录人口统计学数据和阻滞平面及持续时间。记录补充硬膜外麻醉的使用情况,以及心动过缓、低血压、恶心和呕吐的发生频率。记录阻滞持续时间以及患者下床和排尿的时间。获取迟发性变量,包括疲劳、排尿困难、背痛和短暂性神经症状(TNS)。
组间无人口统计学差异,手术时间相似。所有病例均获得满意麻醉,低血压、心动过缓、恶心或呕吐无差异。感觉和运动阻滞的起始时间相似。接受利多卡因的患者在硬膜外补充前的阻滞持续时间为 94±21 分钟,而接受甲哌卡因的患者为 122±23 分钟(P<0.011)。接受甲哌卡因的患者下床和排尿时间更长,但不影响 PACU 停留时间。24 小时和 48 小时恢复情况相似,无 TNS 症状报告。
利多卡因和甲哌卡因腰麻无明显差异。接受甲哌卡因的患者下床和排尿时间以及首次硬膜外导管给药时间更长。两组均无 TNS 症状。利多卡因和甲哌卡因均适合用于门诊骨科下肢手术的腰麻。