Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of two different volumes of lidocaine in intravenous regional anesthesia

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to compare low concentration-high volume intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) method with local anesthetic method in upper extremity surgery in terms of efficiency and adverse effects. MATERIAL/METHODS: Thirty-nine patients were divided into 2 groups; the first...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ulus, Abdülkadir, Gürses, Ercan, Öztürk, İbrahim, Serin, Simay
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836598/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24220662
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.889547
_version_ 1782292324308484096
author Ulus, Abdülkadir
Gürses, Ercan
Öztürk, İbrahim
Serin, Simay
author_facet Ulus, Abdülkadir
Gürses, Ercan
Öztürk, İbrahim
Serin, Simay
author_sort Ulus, Abdülkadir
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to compare low concentration-high volume intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) method with local anesthetic method in upper extremity surgery in terms of efficiency and adverse effects. MATERIAL/METHODS: Thirty-nine patients were divided into 2 groups; the first group received a 2% concentration of 12–15 mL lidocaine (Group 1) and the second group received a 0.5% concentration of 30–50 mL lidocaine (Group 2). Intraoperative hemodynamic data of patients (systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean blood pressure, heart rate, and peripheral oxygen saturation- SpO(2)) was recorded before and after anesthesia at 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 40 minutes. RESULTS: The intergroup and intragroup comparisons did not reveal any significant differences in hemodynamic data. The onset time of sensorial block was shorter and the regression time of sensorial block was longer in Group 1 than Group 2. Group 1 had shorter onset time of motor block and longer regression time of motor block than Group 2. There were no significant differences between the study groups in terms of the time of tourniquet and postoperative analgesia time. CONCLUSIONS: IVRA technique applied with 2% concentration and volume of 12–15 mL lidocaine may be suggested as a safe option.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3836598
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher International Scientific Literature, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38365982013-11-21 Comparative evaluation of two different volumes of lidocaine in intravenous regional anesthesia Ulus, Abdülkadir Gürses, Ercan Öztürk, İbrahim Serin, Simay Med Sci Monit Clinical Research BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to compare low concentration-high volume intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) method with local anesthetic method in upper extremity surgery in terms of efficiency and adverse effects. MATERIAL/METHODS: Thirty-nine patients were divided into 2 groups; the first group received a 2% concentration of 12–15 mL lidocaine (Group 1) and the second group received a 0.5% concentration of 30–50 mL lidocaine (Group 2). Intraoperative hemodynamic data of patients (systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean blood pressure, heart rate, and peripheral oxygen saturation- SpO(2)) was recorded before and after anesthesia at 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 40 minutes. RESULTS: The intergroup and intragroup comparisons did not reveal any significant differences in hemodynamic data. The onset time of sensorial block was shorter and the regression time of sensorial block was longer in Group 1 than Group 2. Group 1 had shorter onset time of motor block and longer regression time of motor block than Group 2. There were no significant differences between the study groups in terms of the time of tourniquet and postoperative analgesia time. CONCLUSIONS: IVRA technique applied with 2% concentration and volume of 12–15 mL lidocaine may be suggested as a safe option. International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2013-11-13 /pmc/articles/PMC3836598/ /pubmed/24220662 http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.889547 Text en © Med Sci Monit, 2013 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License
spellingShingle Clinical Research
Ulus, Abdülkadir
Gürses, Ercan
Öztürk, İbrahim
Serin, Simay
Comparative evaluation of two different volumes of lidocaine in intravenous regional anesthesia
title Comparative evaluation of two different volumes of lidocaine in intravenous regional anesthesia
title_full Comparative evaluation of two different volumes of lidocaine in intravenous regional anesthesia
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of two different volumes of lidocaine in intravenous regional anesthesia
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of two different volumes of lidocaine in intravenous regional anesthesia
title_short Comparative evaluation of two different volumes of lidocaine in intravenous regional anesthesia
title_sort comparative evaluation of two different volumes of lidocaine in intravenous regional anesthesia
topic Clinical Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836598/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24220662
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.889547
work_keys_str_mv AT ulusabdulkadir comparativeevaluationoftwodifferentvolumesoflidocaineinintravenousregionalanesthesia
AT gursesercan comparativeevaluationoftwodifferentvolumesoflidocaineinintravenousregionalanesthesia
AT ozturkibrahim comparativeevaluationoftwodifferentvolumesoflidocaineinintravenousregionalanesthesia
AT serinsimay comparativeevaluationoftwodifferentvolumesoflidocaineinintravenousregionalanesthesia