medigraphic.com
ISSN 3061-8142 (Electronic)
ISSN 0484-7903 (Print)

2007, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Anest 2007; 30 (4)

Clinical experience of mixed blockade with continuous postoperative analgesia and epidural blockade with intravenous postoperative analgesia in caesarean section

Sarmiento-Ramírez NL, Hernández-Jiménez A

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 216-219
PDF size: 109.75 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: The combined technique for obstetric patients undergoing caesarean section had been used for up to 20 years. Objective: To ascertain the efficacy of combined spinal-epidural block in caesarean section with postoperative pain control with synthetic opioids during the first 24 hours after surgery compared with the epidural technique and intravenous analgesia with metamizole. Methods: A randomized clinical study was conducted with two groups of patients with ASA I-II; group 1 (n=51) procedure was combined spinal-epidural with heavy bupivacaine for the surgery and buprenorphine and 0.125% bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia. Group 2 procedure was epidural technique (n = 49) with lidocaine for the surgery and intravenous metamizole for postoperative analgesia. The intensity of pain was evaluated by using an analogous visual scale (AVS) method during 24 hours; side effects were ascertained as well. Results: A good quality of anesthesia was obtained; this was evaluated by latency, need of potent analgesic during the surgery and time to begin the surgery. The latency time showed a Student t test value of 3.11 (p‹ 0.001), while the time to begin the surgery registered a Student t test value of 0.73, with no significant p value. Post surgical pain evaluated through the AVS was statistically significant for group 1. Conclusions: For obstetric patients the combined spinal-epidural technique with the spinal catheter for postoperative analgesia with selective analgesics drugs is a suitable option, when compared against the epidural technique and intravenous analgesic drugs.


REFERENCES

  1. Rawal N. European trends in the use of combined spinal-epidural technique. A 17 nation survey. Rev Anesth 1995;32:61-66.

  2. Bromage P. Mechanism of action of extradural anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 1975;47:199-202.

  3. Davies SJ, Paech MJ, Welch H. Maternal experience during epidural or combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for caesarean section: A prospective randomized trial. Anest Analg (Abstract) 1997;85:607-613.

  4. Narinder R, Bjorn H, Crowhurst JA. Técnica raquídea y epidural combinada. En: Mc Graw-Hill Interamericana (ed). Clínicas de Anestesiología de Norteamérica. México: Interamericana 2000;2:265-291.

  5. Cruickshank RH, Hopkinson JM. Fluid flow through dural puncture sites: An in vitro comparison of needles point types. Anaesthesia 1989;44:414-418.

  6. Kanner R. Secretos del tratamiento del dolor. México. McGraw-Hill Interamericana; 1998.

  7. D’Angelo R, Eisenach JC. Severe maternal hypotension and fetal bradycardia after a combined spinal-epidural anesthetic. Anesthesiology 1997;87:166-168.

  8. Collins RE, Davies DWL, Aveling W. Randomized comparison of combined spinal-epidural and standard epidural analgesia in labour. Lancet 1995;345:1413-1419.

  9. Collins VJ. Anestesiología. 3ra ed. México, D.F.: Interamericana-McGraw-Hill, 1996.

  10. Glass P, Estok P, Ginsberg B, et al. Use of patient controlled analgesia to compare the efficacy of epidural to intravenous fentanyl administration. Anesth Analg 1992;74:345-351.

  11. McGrath PA. El dolor en los niños. En: Kanner R. Secretos del tratamiento del dolor. México. Mac-GrawHill Interamericana; 1998:195-206.

  12. Dahl-JB, Rosenberg J, Dirkes WE, et al. Prevention of postoperative pain by balanced analgesia. Br J Anaesth 1990;64:518-520.

  13. Albright GA, Forster RM. The safety and efficacy of combined spinal and epidural analgesia/anesthesia 6002 blocks in a community hospital. Reg Anesth Pain Med 1999;24:117-125.

  14. Aldebert S, Sleth J. Meningite bacterieme a pres anesthesie rachidiene et peridurale combinee en obstetrique. Ann Franc D Anesthesie Reanim 1996;15:687-688.

  15. Anonymous: Recommended minimum standards for obstetric anaesthesia services. OAA, UK. 1995.

  16. Barclay D, Renegar O, Nelson E. The influence of inferior vena cava compression on the level of spinal anesthesia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1968;101:792-800.

  17. Collis RE, Harding SA, Morgan BM. Effect of maternal ambulation in labour with low-dose combined spinal-epidural analgesia. Anaesthesia 1999;54:535-539.

  18. Stienstra R, Dahan A, Alhadi ZR, et al. Mechanism of action of an epidural top-up in combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1996;83:382-386.

  19. Rudolph-H. Smart technology improves patient-controlled analgesia: preliminary report. Anesth-Anal 1999;89:226-232.

  20. Garza HA. Analgesia para trabajo de parto. Anestesia en México. 2000;XII:41-43.

  21. Grass JA. Función de la anestesia y analgesia epidurales en la evolución postoperatoria. En: McGraw-Hill Interamericana. Clínicas de anestesiología de Norteamérica. México: 2000: 393-412.

  22. Birnbach DJ, Stein DJ, Hartman JK, et al. Complications of combined spinal-epidural analgesia compared with lumbar analgesia. (Abstract) Anesthesiology 1996;85:860.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com