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 Liam, B. L.
Right arrow Articles by Chong, J. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Liam, B. L.
Right arrow Articles by Chong, J. L.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 45, 645-650, Copyright © 1998 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

ARTICLES

Dose response study of lidocaine 1% for spinal anaesthesia for lower limb and perineal surgery

BL Liam, CF Yim and JL Chong
Department of Anaesthesia, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, Republic of Singapore. beng_ling_liam@notes.ttsh.gov.sg

PURPOSE: To compare the sensory and motor block produced by three different volumes of intrathecal lidocaine 1% and thereby determine the appropriate volume to administer for surgery of the lower limbs and perineum. METHODS: Forty-eight patients scheduled for perineal or lower limb surgery were randomly assigned to receive 4, 6 or 8 ml lidocaine 1% intrathecally. The onset, spread, duration and regression of analgesia and motor block and side effects were evaluated (by a blinded observer whenever possible). RESULTS: The maximum cephalad spread in the 6 ml (T8 +/- 3) and 8 ml (T4 +/- 1.7) groups were higher than the 4 ml group (T12 +/- 2.2, P < 0.01). In the 4 ml group, six patients (33%) did not achieve analgesia to T12 and four (22%) did not have complete motor blockade. Patients given 8 ml had longer duration of block (duration at T12: 104 +/- 23 vs 60 +/- 24, 67 +/- 14 min. P < 0.01: 8 ml vs 4, 6 ml) and slower recovery times (sensory recovery: 188 +/- 27 vs 142 +/- 27, 157 +/- 28 min. P < 0.01; 8 ml vs 4, 6 ml). Two patients (18%) from the 8 ml group and one (5%) from the 6 ml group had transient hypotension. CONCLUSION: Four millilitres intrathecal lidocaine 1% is adequate for perineal surgery but for lower limb procedures, 6 ml is more appropriate as it consistently provides sensory analgesia above L1 dermatome and complete motor block. Eight ml gives an unnecessarily high block with higher incidence of hypotension.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
Y. T. Kawamata, K. Nishikawa, T. Kawamata, K. Omote, M. Igarashi, M. Yamauchi, K. Sato, M. Nakayama, and A. Namiki
A Comparison of Hyperbaric 1% and 3% Solutions of Small-Dose Lidocaine in Spinal Anesthesia
Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2003; 96(3): 881 - 884.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.