Cargando…
Intrathecal chloroprocaine or hyperbaric prilocaine for ambulatory knee surgery? A prospective randomized study
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare intrathecal 1% chloroprocaine with 2% hyperbaric prilocaine in the setting of ambulatory knee arthroscopy. We hypothesized that complete resolution of the sensory block was faster with chloroprocaine. METHODS: Eighty patients scheduled for knee arthrosco...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7905001/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33629206 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-021-00332-3 |
_version_ | 1783655031605559296 |
---|---|
author | Guntz, E Vasseur, C Ifrim, D Louvard, A Fils, J F Kapessidou, Y |
author_facet | Guntz, E Vasseur, C Ifrim, D Louvard, A Fils, J F Kapessidou, Y |
author_sort | Guntz, E |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare intrathecal 1% chloroprocaine with 2% hyperbaric prilocaine in the setting of ambulatory knee arthroscopy. We hypothesized that complete resolution of the sensory block was faster with chloroprocaine. METHODS: Eighty patients scheduled for knee arthroscopy were included in this prospective randomized double-blind study. Spinal anesthesia was performed with either chloroprocaine (50 mg) or hyperbaric prilocaine (50 mg). Characteristics of sensory and motor blocks and side effects were recorded. RESULTS: Mean time to full sensory block recovery was shorter with chloroprocaine (169 (56.1) min vs 248 (59.4)). The characteristics of the sensory blocks were similar at the T12 dermatome level between the two groups. Differences appeared at T10: the percentage of patients with a sensory block was higher, onset quicker and duration longer with hyperbaric prilocaine. The number of patients with a sensory block at T4 dermatome level in both groups was minimal. Times to full motor recovery were identical in both groups (85 (70–99) vs 86 (76–111) min). Time to spontaneous voiding was shorter with chloroprocaine (203 (57.6) min vs 287.3 (47.2) min). Incidence of side effects was low in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: When considering the characteristics of the sensory block, the use of chloroprocaine may allow an earlier discharge of patients. Cephalic extension was to a higher dermatomal level and the sensory block at T10 level was of prolonged duration with hyperbaric prilocaine, suggesting that the choice between the two drugs should also be performed based on the level of the sensory block requested by the surgery. This study is registered in the US National Clinical Trials Registry, registration number: NCT030389, the first of February 2017, Retrospectively registered. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7905001 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79050012021-03-09 Intrathecal chloroprocaine or hyperbaric prilocaine for ambulatory knee surgery? A prospective randomized study Guntz, E Vasseur, C Ifrim, D Louvard, A Fils, J F Kapessidou, Y J Exp Orthop Original Paper PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare intrathecal 1% chloroprocaine with 2% hyperbaric prilocaine in the setting of ambulatory knee arthroscopy. We hypothesized that complete resolution of the sensory block was faster with chloroprocaine. METHODS: Eighty patients scheduled for knee arthroscopy were included in this prospective randomized double-blind study. Spinal anesthesia was performed with either chloroprocaine (50 mg) or hyperbaric prilocaine (50 mg). Characteristics of sensory and motor blocks and side effects were recorded. RESULTS: Mean time to full sensory block recovery was shorter with chloroprocaine (169 (56.1) min vs 248 (59.4)). The characteristics of the sensory blocks were similar at the T12 dermatome level between the two groups. Differences appeared at T10: the percentage of patients with a sensory block was higher, onset quicker and duration longer with hyperbaric prilocaine. The number of patients with a sensory block at T4 dermatome level in both groups was minimal. Times to full motor recovery were identical in both groups (85 (70–99) vs 86 (76–111) min). Time to spontaneous voiding was shorter with chloroprocaine (203 (57.6) min vs 287.3 (47.2) min). Incidence of side effects was low in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: When considering the characteristics of the sensory block, the use of chloroprocaine may allow an earlier discharge of patients. Cephalic extension was to a higher dermatomal level and the sensory block at T10 level was of prolonged duration with hyperbaric prilocaine, suggesting that the choice between the two drugs should also be performed based on the level of the sensory block requested by the surgery. This study is registered in the US National Clinical Trials Registry, registration number: NCT030389, the first of February 2017, Retrospectively registered. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-02-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7905001/ /pubmed/33629206 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-021-00332-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Guntz, E Vasseur, C Ifrim, D Louvard, A Fils, J F Kapessidou, Y Intrathecal chloroprocaine or hyperbaric prilocaine for ambulatory knee surgery? A prospective randomized study |
title | Intrathecal chloroprocaine or hyperbaric prilocaine for ambulatory knee surgery? A prospective randomized study |
title_full | Intrathecal chloroprocaine or hyperbaric prilocaine for ambulatory knee surgery? A prospective randomized study |
title_fullStr | Intrathecal chloroprocaine or hyperbaric prilocaine for ambulatory knee surgery? A prospective randomized study |
title_full_unstemmed | Intrathecal chloroprocaine or hyperbaric prilocaine for ambulatory knee surgery? A prospective randomized study |
title_short | Intrathecal chloroprocaine or hyperbaric prilocaine for ambulatory knee surgery? A prospective randomized study |
title_sort | intrathecal chloroprocaine or hyperbaric prilocaine for ambulatory knee surgery? a prospective randomized study |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7905001/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33629206 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-021-00332-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT guntze intrathecalchloroprocaineorhyperbaricprilocaineforambulatorykneesurgeryaprospectiverandomizedstudy AT vasseurc intrathecalchloroprocaineorhyperbaricprilocaineforambulatorykneesurgeryaprospectiverandomizedstudy AT ifrimd intrathecalchloroprocaineorhyperbaricprilocaineforambulatorykneesurgeryaprospectiverandomizedstudy AT louvarda intrathecalchloroprocaineorhyperbaricprilocaineforambulatorykneesurgeryaprospectiverandomizedstudy AT filsjf intrathecalchloroprocaineorhyperbaricprilocaineforambulatorykneesurgeryaprospectiverandomizedstudy AT kapessidouy intrathecalchloroprocaineorhyperbaricprilocaineforambulatorykneesurgeryaprospectiverandomizedstudy |