CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Patel, D.
Right arrow Articles by Shevde, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Patel, D.
Right arrow Articles by Shevde, K.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 37, 567-570, Copyright © 1990 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

ARTICLES

Comparison of intrathecal meperidine and lidocaine in endoscopic urological procedures

D Patel, Y Janardhan, B Merai, J Robalino and K Shevde
Maimonides Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Brooklyn, New York 11219.

The purpose of this study was to determine if a small dose of intrathecal meperidine would achieve adequate spinal anaesthesia while minimizing complications and to compare its effectiveness with lidocaine. The spinal anaesthetic effects of five per cent lidocaine 0.5 mg.kg-1 in 7.5 percent glucose (n = 20) or five per cent meperidine 0.5 mg.kg-1 (n = 22) were evaluated in 42 ASA physical status II or III patients. Intrathecal injection of the anaesthetic agent was given with the patient in the sitting position in which he remained for ten minutes before being placed in the lithotomy position. The onset time for sensory blockade was seven minutes in the lidocaine group and ten minutes in the meperidine group. Final sensory levels were identical in both groups. Mean arterial blood pressure decreased significantly in the lidocaine group but not in the meperidine group. Motor block was absent in ten patients in the meperidine group but was present in all the patients in the lidocaine group. Duration of postoperative analgesia was 968 min in the meperidine group and 681 min in the lidocaine group (NS). Complications such as nausea, vomiting, itching, drowsiness and respiratory depression were similar in the two groups. It is concluded that low-dose meperidine, 0.5 mg.kg-1, is effective as a spinal anaesthetic agent and has few complications.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
J.-D. Roy, M. Girard, and P. Drolet
Intrathecal Meperidine Decreases Shivering During Cesarean Delivery Under Spinal Anesthesia
Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2004; 98(1): 230 - 234.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
M. F. Mulroy, R. Greengrass, S. Ganapathy, V. Chan, and A. Heierson
Sameridine Is Safe and Effective for Spinal Anesthesia: A Comparative Dose-Ranging Study with Lidocaine for Inguinal Hernia Repair
Anesth. Analg., April 1, 1999; 88(4): 815 - 815.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
D. Hansen and S. Hansen
The Effects of Three Graded Doses of Meperidine for Spinal Anesthesia in African Men
Anesth. Analg., April 1, 1999; 88(4): 827 - 827.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1990 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.