Dataset Information

A Randomized Controlled Trial: Comparison of 4% Articaine versus 0.5% Bupivacaine for Ambulatory Orthopedic Surgery under Supraclavicular Block.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Articaine has been used in many dental and ophthalmic outpatient procedures. In the era of ultrasound-guided regional techniques, we searched for short and potent local anesthetic for patients undergoing ambulatory upper limb procedures. However, studies about articaine efficacy in brachial plexus block are limited. In this study, we compared its safety and efficacy against bupivacaine as a commonly used anesthetic agent for ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block.

Methods

This randomized prospective study was performed at Ain Shams University Hospital from January to March 2020. A total of 117 patients aged 20 to 60 years, with the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II, were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: in group A, patients received 30 ml articaine 2%, and in group B, patients received 30 ml of bupivacaine 0.5%. We measured motor and sensory block duration as a primary outcome. Other secondary outcomes such as onset of block, duration of analgesia, patient satisfaction, and time to home discharge readiness were also measured.

Results

We analyzed data collected from 97 patients. The motor block duration was significantly shorter in group A (165.73 ± 20.33 min) than in group B (220.27 ± 37.73 min). The onset of motor block was faster in group A (8.73 ± 4.33 min), and the postoperative VAS score was lower in group B. Patients in group A achieved an earlier home discharge of 289.67 ± 2.73 min.

Conclusion

Earlier resolution of articaine block makes it more favorable than bupivacaine for ambulatory surgery. This trial is registered with (NCT04189198).

SUBMITTER: Armanious SH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7532365 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Randomized Controlled Trial: Comparison of 4% Articaine versus 0.5% Bupivacaine for Ambulatory Orthopedic Surgery under Supraclavicular Block.

Armanious Simon H SH Abdelhameed Gamal A GA

Anesthesiology research and practice 20200924

<h4>Background</h4>Articaine has been used in many dental and ophthalmic outpatient procedures. In the era of ultrasound-guided regional techniques, we searched for short and potent local anesthetic for patients undergoing ambulatory upper limb procedures. However, studies about articaine efficacy in brachial plexus block are limited. In this study, we compared its safety and efficacy against bupivacaine as a commonly used anesthetic agent for ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus bl ...[more]

PMID: 33029135

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundArticaine has emerged as a local anesthetic (LA) that produces sensory and motor blockade shorter than bupivacaine and lower in neurotoxicity than lidocaine. Studies have shown that adding dexmedetomidine to LA produces prolongation of sensory and motor bock duration. Early regain of motor power with adequate analgesia is needed in hemodialysis fistula creation surgery, for early start of physiotherapy. We designed this study to test efficacy of adding dexmedetomidine to articaine on the duration of sensory and motor block.MethodsAfter university review board approval, written informed consent to participate in the study was obtained. Patients with chronic renal failure undergoing radiocephalic hemodialysis fistula creation were eligible for enrollment in this double-blind, randomized trial. Patients receive either 40 ml of 2% articaine hydrochloride or 40 ml of articaine 2% mixed with dexmedetomidine (1 μg.kg - 1). Sensory block duration in minutes is assessed by pinprick test and motor block duration in minutes is tested by Bromage scale; both are recorded as a primary outcome. Secondary outcomes, including onset of sensory and motor block, time for rescue analgesia, hemodynamic changes, oversedation, and possible side effect, were recorded.ResultsFifty patients were enrolled in the study (25 in the articaine Group A and 25 in the articaine and dexmedetomidine group [AD]). Longer sensory block duration was in Group AD (230-260 min) than in Group A (172-185 min) with P < 0.001. In addition, motor block duration was significantly longer in Group AD than in Group A, (220 ± 110 min), (165 ± 45 min), respectively. The duration of effective analgesia was significantly longer in Group AD (363 ± 134 min) versus in Group A (244 ± 84 min). The onset of block was short and similar between groups.ConclusionAddition of dexmedetomidine to articaine during arteriovenous fistula creation provide prolongation of sensory and motor block duration and augment analgesia.Trial registrationThis trial was registered at Clinical trial.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04171349 with the identification number NCT04171349.

Project description:BackgroundThe analgesic and sedative effect of clonidine explain its common use as adjuvant in regional anesthesia, however the hemodynamic instability associated with its neuroaxial administration is the major drawback. Our study hypothesis is to compare the hemodynamic and analgesic effect of epidural fentanyl in comparison to meperidine when added to clonidine in patients undergoing lower limbs orthopedic surgery using combined spinal-epidural anesthesia.MethodsOne hundred thirty five ASA physical status I or II patients were recruited for lower limb orthopedic surgery. All received 2 mL intrathecal 0.5 % hyperbaric bupivacaine, 10 mL epidural 0.25 % plain bupivacaine, and 1 mL epidural clonidine 2 μg/kg (Clonidine group) and then either 1 ml fentanyl 25 μg (Fentanyl Group) or 1 ml meperidine 25 mg (Meperidine Group). The quality of surgical anesthesia, incidence of hypotension and bradycardia, intra-operative pain assessment, and onset of postoperative pain, sedation scores and side effects in the postoperative period were recorded.ResultsThe 1(st) analgesic requirement in the postoperative period was significantly prolonged in the meperidine group (p = 0.001). Significant decrease in the mean arterial blood pressure in fentanyl group was at 15, 30, 45, 60 and 90 min (p = 0.035, 0.019, 0.027, 0.032 and 0.039) respectively, significant decrease in meperdine group was at 15 and 30 min (p = 0.038 and 0.043), while in clonidine group a significant decrease was at 15, 30, 45, and 60 min (p = 0.025, 0.028, 0.036 and 0.042) respectively. Among group changes, the mean arterial blood pressure was significantly higher in meperdine group at 30, 45, 60 and 90 min (p = 0.007, 0.015, 0.029 and 0.033) respectively. A significant decrease in the heart rate in fentanyl group at 15, 30 and 45 min (p = 0.035, 0.018 and 0.029), in meperdine group a significant decrease in the heart rate was at 15 min (p = 0.038), while in clonidine group a significant decrease was at 15, and 30 min (p = 0.016 and 0.003) . Among group changes, the heart rate was significantly higher in meperdine group at 30, 45 and 60 min (p = 0.021, 0.017 and 0.011). VAS were significantly lower in meperdine group in comparison to fentanyl and clonidine groups at 2 h, 3 h and 4 h post-operative period (p = 0.024, 0.001 and 0.039).ConclusionThe combined administration of epidural clonidine and meperidine provided better intraoperative hemodynamics and prolonged postoperative analgesia than epidural clonidine fentanyl combination in patients undergoing lower limb orthopedic surgery.Trial registrationClinical Trail Registry (Clinicaltrail.gov) NCT 02128451 .

Project description:IntroductionAlthough more than 30 million patients in the United States undergo ambulatory surgery each year, it remains unclear what percentage of these patients receive a perioperative nerve block. We reviewed data from the 2006 National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery to determine the demographic, socioeconomic, geographic, and clinical factors associated with the likelihood of nerve block placement for ambulatory orthopedic surgery. The primary outcome of interest was the association between primary method of payment and likelihood of nerve block placement. In addition, we examined the association between type of surgical procedures, patient demographics, and hospital characteristics with the likelihood of receiving a nerve block.MethodsThis cross-sectional study reviewed 6000 orthopedic anesthetics from the 2006 National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery data set, which accounted for more than 3.9 million orthopedic anesthetics when weighted. The primary outcome of this study addressed the likelihood of receiving a nerve block for orthopedic ambulatory surgery according to the patient's primary method of payment. Secondary end points included differences in demographics, surgical procedures, adverse effects, complications, recovery profile, anesthesia staffing model, and total perioperative charges in those with and without nerve block.ResultsOverall, 14.9% of anesthetics in this sample involved a peripheral nerve block. Length of time in postoperative recovery, total perioperative time, and total charges were less for those receiving nerve blocks. Patients were more likely to receive a nerve block if their procedures were performed in metropolitan service areas (odds ratio [OR], 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-2.91; P = 0.007) or in freestanding surgical facilities (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.74-2.96; P < 0.0001) and if payment for their surgery was supported by government programs (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.01-6.21; P = 0.048) or private insurance (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.12-6.13; P = 0.03) versus self-pay or charity care.ConclusionsFor patients receiving ambulatory orthopedic surgery in the United States, our results suggest that geographic and socioeconomic factors are associated with different likelihoods of perioperative peripheral nerve block placement.

Project description:BackgroundThoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) and liposomal bupivacaine (LB) are two methods used for postoperative pain control after thoracic surgery. Some studies have compared LB to standard bupivacaine. However, data comparing the outcomes of LB to TEA after minimally invasive lung resection is limited. Therefore, the objective of our study was to compare postoperative pain, opioid usage, and outcomes between patients who received TEA vs. LB.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent minimally invasive lung resections over an 8-month period. Intraoperatively, patients received either LB under direct vision or a TEA. Pain scores were obtained in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and at 12, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively. Morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) were calculated at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively. Postoperative outcomes were then compared between groups.ResultsIn total, 391 patients underwent minimally invasive lung resection: 236 (60%) wedge resections, 51 (13%) segmentectomies, and 104 (27%) lobectomies. Of these, 326 (83%) received LB intraoperatively. Fewer patients in the LB group experienced postoperative complications (18% vs. 34%, P=0.004). LB patients also had lower median pain scores at 24 (P=0.03) and 48 hours (P=0.001) postoperatively. There was no difference in MMEs at 24 hours (P=0.49). However, at 48 hours, patients who received LB required less narcotics (P=0.02). Median hospital length of stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in patients who received LB (2 vs. 4 days, P<0.001). On multivariable analysis, increasing age, postoperative complications, and use of TEA were independently associated with a longer hospital LOS.ConclusionsCompared to TEA, LB intercostal block placed under direct vision reduced morphine use 48 hours after thoracic surgery. It was also associated with fewer postoperative complications and shorter median hospital LOS. LB is a good alternative to TEA for pain management after minimally invasive lung resection.

Project description:Objective The interscalene brachial plexus block (ISBB) constitutes the gold standard for analgesia after shoulder procedures. Ipsilateral phrenic nerve block remains the most common adverse effect after ISBB. Alternative nerve blocks are performed in shoulder surgery in order to prevent hemi-diaphragmatic paralysis (HDP). The purpose of the present study was to investigate the minimum effective local anesthetic volume of 0.5% bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia with an anterior suprascapular nerve block (ASSB). The secondary aim was to investigate diaphragm functions with the local anesthetic doses used while conducting effective volume research. Method This prospective observational study was conducted at the American Hospital of Istanbul, Turkey, from March to July 2022. The initial injected volume of 0.5% bupivacaine was 10 ml. Our clinical experience indicates that this yields a complete sensory block of the anterior suprascapular nerve. In accordance with the up-and-down method, the volume of 0.5% bupivacaine used for a particular patient was determined by the outcome of the preceding block, which represented block success. In case of effective ASSB being achieved, the volume of 0.5% bupivacaine to be administered to the next patient was lowered by 1 ml. In case of block failure, however, the volume of 0.5% bupivacaine to be applied in the subsequent case was increased by 1 ml. Ipsilateral hemi-diaphragmatic movement measurements were taken before (baseline) and 30 minutes after the block. General anesthesia was induced 60 minutes after the completion of the block performance by means of a standardized protocol. Results Sixty-seven patients were included in the study. The ED50 and ED95 calculated for anterior suprascapular nerve block using probit transformation and logistic regression analysis were 2.646 (95% CI, 0.877-2.890) and 3.043 ml (95% CI, 2.771-4.065), respectively. When complete paralysis was defined as 75% or above, partial paralysis as 25-50%, and no paralysis as 25% or less, volumes of 6 ml or lower appeared to cause no paralysis for the anterior suprascapular nerve block. Conclusion We, therefore, recommend using a volume of 6 ml or less in order to achieve diaphragm-sparing features for anterior suprascapular nerve blocks.

Project description:Various advantages of isobaric bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, and hyperbaric bupivacaine are described. There are no studies reliably determining the benefits of these forms of bupivacaine. The purpose of the study was to compare the efficacy of spinal anesthesia (SA) performed with 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine, 0.5% levobupivacaine, and 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. The clinical study was approved by the ethics committee. The sample size was calculated for a confidence level of 99%. 111 patients were randomly allocated into 3 equal groups for spinal anesthesia in lower limb surgeries. In group 1 (1B) spinal anesthesia was performed with 3 ml of 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine (n = 37); in group 2 (2L)-3 ml of 0.5% levobupivacaine (n = 37), in group 3 (3H)-3 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (n = 37). The criterion for assessing the effectiveness of anesthesia was the need to switch to another type of anesthesia (criterion-no anesthesia), or the need for additional use of narcotic analgesics or local anesthesia during surgery (criterion-reporting of painful feelings during the operation). In 1B anesthesia efficiency by the criterion of additional intraoperative analgesia was 100% (37 patients; 95% CI [0.88-1.0]); 2L-86.4%; (31 patients; 95% CI [0.68-0.92]); 3H-72.9% (27 patients; 95% CI [0.56-0.84]). There were significant differences between groups 1B and 2L: p < 0.05 (p = 0.0104). There were no significant differences between groups 2L and 3H (p = 0.2587). All patients in group 1B developed complete sensory block (++) within 4 (3; 5) min. In group 2L complete sensory block developed in 34 patients (89.4%) within 9 (5; 14) min, in group 3H sensory block developed in all patients within 3 (2.5; 4). The duration of analgesia period between 1B and 2L did not statistically differ (p = 0.73). In 3H the duration of analgesia was 170 (150; 200) min. The study found 83.7% efficacy of levobupivacaine and 72.9% efficacy of hyperbaric bupivacaine in comparison with isobaric bupivacaine (100%) when administered intrathecally in equal volumes and amounts (by the criterion of additional intraoperative analgesia).Trial registration: NCT05184465 (Initial Release: 12/01/2021; date of first publication-11/01/2022).

Dataset Information

A Randomized Controlled Trial: Comparison of 4% Articaine versus 0.5% Bupivacaine for Ambulatory Orthopedic Surgery under Supraclavicular Block.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A Randomized Controlled Trial: Comparison of 4% Articaine versus 0.5% Bupivacaine for Ambulatory Orthopedic Surgery under Supraclavicular Block.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets