Spinal anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Thoracic vs. Lumbar Technique

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Imbelloni, Luiz [UNESP]
Data de Publicação: 2014
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.140853
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/167668
Resumo: Aims: In our group, after a study showing that spinal anesthesia is safe when compared with general anesthesia, spinal anesthesia has been the technique of choice for this procedure. This is a prospective study with all patients undergoing LC under spinal anesthesia in our department since 2007. Settings and Design: Prospective observational. Materials and Methods: From 2007 to 2011, 369 patients with symptoms of colelithiasis, laparoscopic cholecystectomy were operated under spinal anesthesia with pneumoperitoneum and low pressure CO2. We compared 15 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine and lumbar puncture with 10 or 7.5 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine thoracic puncture, all with 25 μg fentanyl until the sensory level reached T3. Intraoperative parameters, post-operative pain, complications, recovery, patient satisfaction, and cost were compared between both groups. Statistical Analysis Used: Means were compared by ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test, the percentages of the Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test when appropriate. Time of motor and sensory block in spinal anesthesia group was compared by paired t test or Mann-Whitney test. Differences were considered significant when P ≤ 0.05, and for comparisons of mean pain visual scale, we employed the Bonferroni correction applied to be considered significant only with P ≤ 0.0125 Results: All procedures were completed under spinal anesthesia. The use of lidocaine 1% was successful in the prevention of shoulder pain in 329 (89%) patients. There were significant differences in time to reach T3, obtaining 15 mg > 10 mg = 7.5 mg. There is a positive correlation between the dose and the incidence of hypotension. The lowest doses gave a decrease of 52.2% in the incidence of hypotension. There was a positive correlation between the dose and duration of sensory and motor block. Sensory block was almost twice the motor block at all doses. With low doses, 60% of patients went from table to stretcher. Satisfaction occurred in 99% of patients. Conclusions: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be performed successfully under spinal anesthesia with low-pressure pneumoperitoneum of CO2. The use of thoracic puncture and low doses of hyperbaric bupivacaine provided better hemodynamic stability, less hypotension, and shorter duration of sensory and motor blockade than lumbar spinal anesthesia with conventional doses.
id UNSP_9c20761b427f2cee3342eabd8d2cb733
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/167668
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Spinal anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Thoracic vs. Lumbar TechniqueCholecystectomylaparoscopicspinal anesthesiaAims: In our group, after a study showing that spinal anesthesia is safe when compared with general anesthesia, spinal anesthesia has been the technique of choice for this procedure. This is a prospective study with all patients undergoing LC under spinal anesthesia in our department since 2007. Settings and Design: Prospective observational. Materials and Methods: From 2007 to 2011, 369 patients with symptoms of colelithiasis, laparoscopic cholecystectomy were operated under spinal anesthesia with pneumoperitoneum and low pressure CO2. We compared 15 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine and lumbar puncture with 10 or 7.5 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine thoracic puncture, all with 25 μg fentanyl until the sensory level reached T3. Intraoperative parameters, post-operative pain, complications, recovery, patient satisfaction, and cost were compared between both groups. Statistical Analysis Used: Means were compared by ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test, the percentages of the Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test when appropriate. Time of motor and sensory block in spinal anesthesia group was compared by paired t test or Mann-Whitney test. Differences were considered significant when P ≤ 0.05, and for comparisons of mean pain visual scale, we employed the Bonferroni correction applied to be considered significant only with P ≤ 0.0125 Results: All procedures were completed under spinal anesthesia. The use of lidocaine 1% was successful in the prevention of shoulder pain in 329 (89%) patients. There were significant differences in time to reach T3, obtaining 15 mg > 10 mg = 7.5 mg. There is a positive correlation between the dose and the incidence of hypotension. The lowest doses gave a decrease of 52.2% in the incidence of hypotension. There was a positive correlation between the dose and duration of sensory and motor block. Sensory block was almost twice the motor block at all doses. With low doses, 60% of patients went from table to stretcher. Satisfaction occurred in 99% of patients. Conclusions: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be performed successfully under spinal anesthesia with low-pressure pneumoperitoneum of CO2. The use of thoracic puncture and low doses of hyperbaric bupivacaine provided better hemodynamic stability, less hypotension, and shorter duration of sensory and motor blockade than lumbar spinal anesthesia with conventional doses.Faculty of Medicine of Botucatu, UNESPSchool of Medicine-Nova Esperança, Institute of Regional Anesthesia, Hospital Complex MangabeiraFaculty of Medicine of Botucatu, UNESPUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)School of Medicine-Nova Esperança, Institute of Regional Anesthesia, Hospital Complex MangabeiraImbelloni, Luiz [UNESP]2018-12-11T16:37:51Z2018-12-11T16:37:51Z2014-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article477-483application/pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.140853Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, v. 8, n. 4, p. 477-483, 2014.0975-31251658-354Xhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/16766810.4103/1658-354X.1408532-s2.0-849075524762-s2.0-84907552476.pdfScopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengSaudi Journal of Anaesthesia0,454info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-01-28T06:47:18Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/167668Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-08-06T00:08:12.907267Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Spinal anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Thoracic vs. Lumbar Technique
title Spinal anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Thoracic vs. Lumbar Technique
spellingShingle Spinal anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Thoracic vs. Lumbar Technique
Imbelloni, Luiz [UNESP]
Cholecystectomy
laparoscopic
spinal anesthesia
title_short Spinal anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Thoracic vs. Lumbar Technique
title_full Spinal anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Thoracic vs. Lumbar Technique
title_fullStr Spinal anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Thoracic vs. Lumbar Technique
title_full_unstemmed Spinal anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Thoracic vs. Lumbar Technique
title_sort Spinal anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Thoracic vs. Lumbar Technique
author Imbelloni, Luiz [UNESP]
author_facet Imbelloni, Luiz [UNESP]
author_role author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
School of Medicine-Nova Esperança, Institute of Regional Anesthesia, Hospital Complex Mangabeira
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Imbelloni, Luiz [UNESP]
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Cholecystectomy
laparoscopic
spinal anesthesia
topic Cholecystectomy
laparoscopic
spinal anesthesia
description Aims: In our group, after a study showing that spinal anesthesia is safe when compared with general anesthesia, spinal anesthesia has been the technique of choice for this procedure. This is a prospective study with all patients undergoing LC under spinal anesthesia in our department since 2007. Settings and Design: Prospective observational. Materials and Methods: From 2007 to 2011, 369 patients with symptoms of colelithiasis, laparoscopic cholecystectomy were operated under spinal anesthesia with pneumoperitoneum and low pressure CO2. We compared 15 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine and lumbar puncture with 10 or 7.5 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine thoracic puncture, all with 25 μg fentanyl until the sensory level reached T3. Intraoperative parameters, post-operative pain, complications, recovery, patient satisfaction, and cost were compared between both groups. Statistical Analysis Used: Means were compared by ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test, the percentages of the Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test when appropriate. Time of motor and sensory block in spinal anesthesia group was compared by paired t test or Mann-Whitney test. Differences were considered significant when P ≤ 0.05, and for comparisons of mean pain visual scale, we employed the Bonferroni correction applied to be considered significant only with P ≤ 0.0125 Results: All procedures were completed under spinal anesthesia. The use of lidocaine 1% was successful in the prevention of shoulder pain in 329 (89%) patients. There were significant differences in time to reach T3, obtaining 15 mg > 10 mg = 7.5 mg. There is a positive correlation between the dose and the incidence of hypotension. The lowest doses gave a decrease of 52.2% in the incidence of hypotension. There was a positive correlation between the dose and duration of sensory and motor block. Sensory block was almost twice the motor block at all doses. With low doses, 60% of patients went from table to stretcher. Satisfaction occurred in 99% of patients. Conclusions: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be performed successfully under spinal anesthesia with low-pressure pneumoperitoneum of CO2. The use of thoracic puncture and low doses of hyperbaric bupivacaine provided better hemodynamic stability, less hypotension, and shorter duration of sensory and motor blockade than lumbar spinal anesthesia with conventional doses.
publishDate 2014
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2014-01-01
2018-12-11T16:37:51Z
2018-12-11T16:37:51Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.140853
Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, v. 8, n. 4, p. 477-483, 2014.
0975-3125
1658-354X
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/167668
10.4103/1658-354X.140853
2-s2.0-84907552476
2-s2.0-84907552476.pdf
url http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.140853
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/167668
identifier_str_mv Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, v. 8, n. 4, p. 477-483, 2014.
0975-3125
1658-354X
10.4103/1658-354X.140853
2-s2.0-84907552476
2-s2.0-84907552476.pdf
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia
0,454
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 477-483
application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1808129588487782400