medigraphic.com
ISSN 0185-3252 (Print)
Revista de la Asociación Médica del Centro Médico ABC

2007, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

An Med Asoc Med Hosp ABC 2007; 52 (1)

Disminución de los requerimientos de fentanil con bloqueo peridural caudal en cirugía anorrectal

Sánchez RJP, Covarrubias VJA, Rodríguez RJ, Díaz AMA, Zamora LJ, Boone EA, Jiménez CA

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 27-29
PDF size: 77.24 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objetive: To investigate if caudal block decreases the requirements for fentanyl by endovenous path in patients with submissive anorectal surgery. Material and methods: 40 adult patients were studied, randomly dived into two groups with 20 subjects each one. After the endovenous induction, caudal block with ropivacaine 0.1% with volume of 14 milliliters was applied into group as well as the number of patients who required it were registered, in both groups: group A (caudal block) and B (without caudal block). Results: The registry of the subsequent doses of fentanyl was greater in group B; three patients (15%) of group A received extra dose of fentanyl to 1 µg/kg/dosis, whereas in group B there were six patients (30%). Conclusions: Caudal block with ropivacaine does not decrease the necessity of subsequent doses of fentanyl; in our study the group A registry smaller extra doses, but was not statistically significant (p = 0.488).


REFERENCES

  1. Gudaytite J, Marchertiene I, Pavalkis D. Anesthesia for ambulatory anorectal surgery. Medicine 2004; 40: 100-111.

  2. Melman E. Anestesia regional en pediatría. En: Programa de Actualización Continua para Anestesiólogos. México: Científica Médica Latinoamericana e Intersistemas; 2000; Tomo II: 50-56.

  3. Melman E, Penuelas JA, Marrufo JE. Regional anesthesia in children. Anesth Analg 1975; 54: 120-122.

  4. Stoelting R. Local anesthetics. In: Stoelting R. Pharmacology and physiology in anesthetic practice. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1999. p. 162

  5. Vidal MA, Aragón MC, Torres LM. Opioides como coadyuvantes de la analgesia epidural en pediatría. Rev Soc Esp Dolor 2005; 12: 348-356.

  6. Kamibayashi T, Maze M. Clinical uses of a2-adrenergic agonists. Anesthesiology 2000; 93: 1345-1349.

  7. Shu-Yam W, Jihn-Yih L, Chit C, Chi-Hao T, Shiue-Chin L. Caudal epidural block for minor gynecologic procedures in outpatient surgery. Chang Gung Med J 2004; 27: 116-121.

  8. Kumar P, Rudra A, Pan AK, Acharya A. Caudal additives in pediatrics: A comparison among midazolam, ketamine and neostigmine coadministered with bupivacaine. Anesth Analg 2005; 101: 69-73.

  9. Miller R. Miller’s anesthesia. 6th ed. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 2005.

  10. Campbell FA, Yentis SM, Fear DW, Bissonnette B. Analgesic efficacy and safety of a caudal bupivacaine-fentanyl mixture in children. Can J Anaesth 1992; 39: 661-664.

  11. Medina S, Coutiño M, Vargas-Cruz S, Luna H. Bloqueo caudal para cirugía anorrectal. Cir Gen 2000; 22: 112-114.

  12. McClure J.H. Ropivacaine. Br J Anaesth 1996; 76: 300-307.

  13. Higuchi H, Adachi Y, Kazama T. Factors affecting the spread and duration of epidural anesthesia with ropivacaine. Anesthesiology 2004; 101: 451-460.

  14. Khalil S, Lingadevaru H. Caudal regional anesthesia, ropivacaine concentration postoperative analgesia, and infants. Anesth Analg 2006; 103: 395-399.

  15. Kokinsky E, Nilsson K, Larsson LE. Increased incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting without additional analgesic effects when a low dose of intravenous fentanyl is combined with a caudal block. Paediatr Anaesth 2003; 13: 334-338.

  16. Torres-López A, Rufino J, Pérez-Rodríguez J, Sánchez JM, Aljazairi. Ropivacaína al 0.125% versus bupivacaína al 0.125% asociadas a fentanilo, en analgesia epidural obstétrica. Rev Soc Esp Dolor 1999; 6: 343-346.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com