A comparative study of hyperbaric bupivacaine versus hyperbaric bupivacaine and fentanyl (12.5 mcg) in subarachnoid anesthesia for lower abdominal and lower extremity surgeries

Authors

  • Pradeep Samuel Indurkar Department of Anaesthesia, Mamata Medical College, Khammam, Andhra Pradesh
  • Samala Saibaba Department of Anaesthesia, Mamata Medical College, Khammam, Andhra Pradesh

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20151153

Keywords:

Spinal anaesthesia, Hyperbaric bupivacaine, Fentanyl 12.5 mcg, Sensory block

Abstract

Background: This study evaluated the effects of adding Fentanyl 12.5 mcg to hyperbaric Bupivacaine 0.5% for spinal anesthesia with regards to the onset of sensory block, maximum sensory level reached and the time to achieve it, time to two dermatome segment regression, onset of motor block, time for maximum motor blockade, duration of motor block, hemodynamic parameters and incidence of side effects.

Methods: Sixty patients, male and female, ASA I or ASA II, aged 18 to 65 years scheduled for elective lower abdominal and lower extremity surgeries were randomized into two groups. Group C (Control group) received 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine 13 mg (2.6 ml) and Group S (Study group) received 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine 13 mg (2.6 ml) and 12.5 mcg of fentanyl (0.25 ml). Intraoperatively, sensory parameters were assessed by pin-prick method and motor parameters were assessed by modified Bromage scale at different time intervals. Haemodynamic parameters were monitored and side effects were also observed.

Results: Both groups were comparable with respect to age, height, weight and duration of surgery. There was statistically significant difference with regard to the onset of sensory block, maximum dermatome level, time to achieve it and time to two segment regression between the two groups. Motor parameters did not differ.

Conclusions: It was concluded that the addition of 12.5 mcg Fentanyl to 13 mg of hyperbaric Bupivacaine 0.5% for spinal anesthesia significantly decreases the onset of sensory block, enhances the maximum dermatome level and also prolongs the time to segment regression with better hemodynamic stability.

 

References

Brown DL. Spinal, epidural, and caudal anesthesia. In: Miller RD, Eriksson LI, Fleisher LA, Wiener-Kronish JP, Young WL, eds. Miller’s Anesthesia. 7th ed. United States of America: Churchill Livingstone; 2009: 1611-1635.

Davies NJH, Cashman JN. Spinal anesthesia - intradural and extradural. In: Davies NJH, Cashman JN, eds. Lee’s Synopsis of Anesthesia. 13th ed. India: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2006: 471-527.

Bernards CM. Epidural and spinal anesthesia. In: Barash PG, Cullen BF, Stoelting RK, Cahalan MK, Stock MC, eds. Clinical Anesthesia. 6th ed. China: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009: 929-951.

McConachie I, McGeachie J, Barrie J. Regional anesthetic techniques. In: Healy TEJ, Knight PR, eds. Wylie and Churchill Davidson’s A Practice of Anesthesia. 7th ed. London: Arnold; 2003: 599-626.

Khangure N. Adjuvant agents in neuraxial blockade, 04 July 2011. Available at: http://totw.anaesthesiologists.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/230-Neuraxial-adjuvants.pdf. Accessed 11 December 2012.

Rathmell JP, Timothy RL, Nauman B. The role of intrathecal drugs in the treatment of acute pain. Anesth Analg. 2005 Nov;101(55):S30-43.

Ben-David B, Frankel R, Arzumonov T, Marchevsky Y, Volpin G. Minidose bupivacaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia for surgical repair of hip fracture in the aged. Anesthesiology. 2000 Jan;92(1):6-10.

Hindle Andrew. Intrathecal opioids in the management of acute postoperative pain. Oxford J. 2008 May;8(3):81-5.

Motiani P, Chaudhary S, Bahl N, Sethi AK. Intrathecal sufentanil versus fentanyl for lower limb surgeries - A randomized controlled trial. J Anesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2010 Oct-Dec;26(4):507-13.

Singh H, Yang J, Thornton K, Adolph HG. Intrathecal fentanyl prolongs sensory bupivacaine spinal block. Can J Anesth. 1995 Nov;42(11):987-91.

Seewal R, Shende D, Kashyap L, Mohan V. Effect of addition of various doses of fentanyl intrathecally to 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine on perioperative analgesia and subarachnoid-block characteristics in lower abdominal surgery: a dose response study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2007 Jan-Feb;32(1):20-6.

Choi DH, Ahn HJ, Kim MH. Bupivacaine-sparing effect of fentanyl in spinal anesthesia for caesarean delivery. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2000 May-Jun;25(3):240-5.

Wong CA, Scavone BM, Slavenas JP, Vidovich MI, Peaceman AM, Ganchiff JN, et al. Efficacy and side effect profile of varying doses of intrathecal fentanyl added to bupivacaine for labor analgesia. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2004 Jan;13(1):19-24.

Techanivate A, Urusopone P, Kiatgungwanglia P, Kosawiboonpol R. Intrathecal fentanyl in spinal anesthesia for appendectomy. J Med Assoc Thai. 2004 May;87(5):523-30.

Bogra J, Arora N, Srivastava P. Synergistic effect of intrathecal fentanyl and bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for caesarean section. BMC Anesthesiol. 2005 May;5(1):5.

Wang C, Chakrabarti MK, Whitwam JG. Specific enhancement by fentanyl of the effects of intrathecal bupivacaine on nociceptive afferent but not on sympathetic efferent pathways in dogs. Anesthesiology. 1993 Oct;79(4):766-73.

Kuusniemi KS, Pihlajamaki KK, Pitkanen MT, Helenius HY, Kirvela OA. The use of bupivacaine and fentanyl for spinal anesthesia for urologic surgery. Anesth Analg. 2000 Dec;91(6):1452-6.

Martyr JW, Clark MX. Hypotension in elderly patients undergoing spinal anesthesia for repair of fractured neck of femur. A comparison of two different spinal solutions. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2001 Oct;29(5):501-5.

Varassi G, Celleno D, Capogna G, Costantino P, Emanuelli M, Sebastiani M, et al. Ventilatory effect of subarachnoid fentanyl in elderly. Anesthesia. 1992 Jul;47(7):558-62.

Downloads

Published

2017-01-16

How to Cite

Indurkar, P. S., & Saibaba, S. (2017). A comparative study of hyperbaric bupivacaine versus hyperbaric bupivacaine and fentanyl (12.5 mcg) in subarachnoid anesthesia for lower abdominal and lower extremity surgeries. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 3(11), 3147–3155. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20151153

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles