Why the study?
The study was conducted to investigate how low-dose levobupivacaine affects surgical comfort and hemodynamics in patients undergoing short urologic procedures with spinal anesthesia.
Does the addition of fentanyl to low-dose levobupivacaine improve recovery and maintain hemodynamics in patients undergoing short urologic surgeries with spinal anesthesia?
Does the addition of fentanyl to low-dose levobupivacaine improve recovery and maintain hemodynamics in patients undergoing short urologic surgeries with spinal anesthesia?
The addition of fentanyl to low-dose levobupivacaine for spinal anesthesia in short urologic surgeries provides adequate anesthesia while allowing for faster motor recovery compared to a higher dose of levobupivacaine alone.
Enables faster motor recovery without hemodynamic compromise in short urologic spinal anesthesia; confirms benefit of fentanyl adjuvant to low-dose levobupivacaine.
Background: To investigate how low-dose levobupivacaine affects both surgical comfort and hemodynamics in patients undergoing short urologic procedures using spinal anesthesia.Methods: Our study was conducted prospectively and double-blind. The study group comprised 40 patients aged 18-65 years from the ASA I-III risk group who had undergone short urological interventions, randomly split into two groups. Informed consent and ethics committee approval were received. Using a media approach and placed in the lateral decubitus position, the patients were given spinal anesthesia using 22 G catheter. Group L was given 1.5ml of levobupivacaine (7.5mg) at 0.5% concentration +0.5ml of saline. Group LF was given 1.2ml levobupivacaine (6mg) at 0.5% concentration +25μg fentanyl (0.5ml) +0.3ml saline. Patient data including peripheral oxygen saturation; systolic, diastolic, mean arterial pressure; time to first postoperative need for analgesics, and spinal block characteristics were recorded at 3, 5, 10, 15, 30, 60, 120 and 360minutes after spinal anesthesia.Results: No significant differences were observed in the demographic and hemodynamic data between groups. Motor blocks were seen to wear off more in Group LF than in Group L at 120minutes. Group LF required first postoperative analgesics later than Group L; this difference was not significant.Conclusions: Sufficient anesthesia was achieved in both groups via spinal block using local anesthetic or local anesthetic plus opioid for relatively short urological procedures. The latter group recovered faster.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Özdemir et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: