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),...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shon, Yoon-Jung, Huh, Jin, Kang, Sung-Sik, Bae, Seung-Kil, Kang, Ryeong-Ah, Kim, Duk-Kyung
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