Cargando…
Comparison of saddle, lumbar epidural and caudal blocks on anal sphincter tone: A prospective, randomized study
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of saddle, lumbar epidural and caudal blocks on anal sphincter tone using anorectal manometry. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective anorectal surgery with regional anaesthesia were divided randomly into three groups and received a saddle (SD), lumbar epidural (LE),...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5536558/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27688685 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0300060516659393 |
_version_ | 1783254032606822400 |
---|---|
author | Shon, Yoon-Jung Huh, Jin Kang, Sung-Sik Bae, Seung-Kil Kang, Ryeong-Ah Kim, Duk-Kyung |
author_facet | Shon, Yoon-Jung Huh, Jin Kang, Sung-Sik Bae, Seung-Kil Kang, Ryeong-Ah Kim, Duk-Kyung |
author_sort | Shon, Yoon-Jung |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of saddle, lumbar epidural and caudal blocks on anal sphincter tone using anorectal manometry. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective anorectal surgery with regional anaesthesia were divided randomly into three groups and received a saddle (SD), lumbar epidural (LE), or caudal (CD) block. Anorectal manometry was performed before and 30 min after each regional block. The degree of motor blockade of the anal sphincter was compared using the maximal resting pressure (MRP) and the maximal squeezing pressure (MSP). RESULTS: The study analysis population consisted of 49 patients (SD group, n = 18; LE group, n = 16; CD group, n = 15). No significant differences were observed in the percentage inhibition of the MRP among the three regional anaesthetic groups. However, percentage inhibition of the MSP was significantly greater in the SD group (83.6 ± 13.7%) compared with the LE group (58.4 ± 19.8%) and the CD group (47.8 ± 16.9%). In all groups, MSP was reduced significantly more than MRP after each regional block. CONCLUSIONS: Saddle block was more effective than lumbar epidural or caudal block for depressing anal sphincter tone. No differences were detected between lumbar epidural and caudal blocks. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5536558 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55365582017-10-03 Comparison of saddle, lumbar epidural and caudal blocks on anal sphincter tone: A prospective, randomized study Shon, Yoon-Jung Huh, Jin Kang, Sung-Sik Bae, Seung-Kil Kang, Ryeong-Ah Kim, Duk-Kyung J Int Med Res Research Reports OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of saddle, lumbar epidural and caudal blocks on anal sphincter tone using anorectal manometry. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective anorectal surgery with regional anaesthesia were divided randomly into three groups and received a saddle (SD), lumbar epidural (LE), or caudal (CD) block. Anorectal manometry was performed before and 30 min after each regional block. The degree of motor blockade of the anal sphincter was compared using the maximal resting pressure (MRP) and the maximal squeezing pressure (MSP). RESULTS: The study analysis population consisted of 49 patients (SD group, n = 18; LE group, n = 16; CD group, n = 15). No significant differences were observed in the percentage inhibition of the MRP among the three regional anaesthetic groups. However, percentage inhibition of the MSP was significantly greater in the SD group (83.6 ± 13.7%) compared with the LE group (58.4 ± 19.8%) and the CD group (47.8 ± 16.9%). In all groups, MSP was reduced significantly more than MRP after each regional block. CONCLUSIONS: Saddle block was more effective than lumbar epidural or caudal block for depressing anal sphincter tone. No differences were detected between lumbar epidural and caudal blocks. SAGE Publications 2016-09-29 2016-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5536558/ /pubmed/27688685 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0300060516659393 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Research Reports Shon, Yoon-Jung Huh, Jin Kang, Sung-Sik Bae, Seung-Kil Kang, Ryeong-Ah Kim, Duk-Kyung Comparison of saddle, lumbar epidural and caudal blocks on anal sphincter tone: A prospective, randomized study |
title | Comparison of saddle, lumbar epidural and caudal blocks on anal sphincter tone: A prospective, randomized study |
title_full | Comparison of saddle, lumbar epidural and caudal blocks on anal sphincter tone: A prospective, randomized study |
title_fullStr | Comparison of saddle, lumbar epidural and caudal blocks on anal sphincter tone: A prospective, randomized study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of saddle, lumbar epidural and caudal blocks on anal sphincter tone: A prospective, randomized study |
title_short | Comparison of saddle, lumbar epidural and caudal blocks on anal sphincter tone: A prospective, randomized study |
title_sort | comparison of saddle, lumbar epidural and caudal blocks on anal sphincter tone: a prospective, randomized study |
topic | Research Reports |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5536558/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27688685 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0300060516659393 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT shonyoonjung comparisonofsaddlelumbarepiduralandcaudalblocksonanalsphinctertoneaprospectiverandomizedstudy AT huhjin comparisonofsaddlelumbarepiduralandcaudalblocksonanalsphinctertoneaprospectiverandomizedstudy AT kangsungsik comparisonofsaddlelumbarepiduralandcaudalblocksonanalsphinctertoneaprospectiverandomizedstudy AT baeseungkil comparisonofsaddlelumbarepiduralandcaudalblocksonanalsphinctertoneaprospectiverandomizedstudy AT kangryeongah comparisonofsaddlelumbarepiduralandcaudalblocksonanalsphinctertoneaprospectiverandomizedstudy AT kimdukkyung comparisonofsaddlelumbarepiduralandcaudalblocksonanalsphinctertoneaprospectiverandomizedstudy |