This Article Résumé de cet Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a scholarly reply Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Le Truong, H. H. Articles by Bergeron, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Le Truong, H. H. Articles by Bergeron, L.

Spinal anesthesia: a comparison of procaine and lidocaine

From the Département d'anesthésie-réanimation, Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont and Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Address correspondence to: Dr. Michel Girard, Département d'anesthésie-réanimation, Hôpital Maisonneuve- Rosemont, 5415 boul. L'Assomption, Montréal, Québec, H1T 2M4, Canada. Phone: 514-252-3426; Fax: 514-252-3542; E-mail: girardmi{at}videotron.ca

Purpose: To compare spinal procaine to spinal lidocaine with regard to their main clinical characteristics and incidence of transient radicular irritation (TRI).

Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, prospective study, patients (two groups, n=30 each) received either 100 mg of lidocaine 5% in 7.5% glucose (Group L) or 100 mg of procaine 10% diluted with 1 ml cerebrospinal fluid (Group P). After spinal anesthesia, segmental level of sensory block was assessed by pinprick. Blood pressure and the height of the block were noted each minute for the first ten minutes, then every three minutes for the next 35 min and finally every five minutes until regression of the block to L4. Motor blockade was evaluated using the Bromage scale. To evaluate the presence of TRI, each patient was questioned 48 hr after surgery.

Results: Time to highest sensory level and to maximum number of segments blocked showed no difference between groups. Mean time for sensory regression to T10 and for regression of the motor block were shorter in Group P. Eighty minutes following injection, sensory levels were lower in Group P. Five patients had inadequate surgical anesthesia in Group P and only one in Group L. No patient in Group P had TRI (95% CI 0–12 %) while eight (27%) in Group L did (95% CI 12–46%).

Conclusions: Procaine 10% was associated with a clinical failure rate of 14.2%. This characteristic must be balanced against an absence of TRI, which occurs more frequently with the use of lidocaine 5%.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Zaric, C. Christiansen, N. L. Pace, and Y. Punjasawadwong Transient Neurologic Symptoms After Spinal Anesthesia with Lidocaine Versus Other Local Anesthetics: A Systematic Review of Randomized, Controlled Trials Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2005; 100(6): 1811 - 1816. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. Yoos and D. J. Kopacz Spinal 2-Chloroprocaine for Surgery: An Initial 10-Month Experience Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2005; 100(2): 553 - 558. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. Yoos and D. J. Kopacz Spinal 2-Chloroprocaine: A Comparison with Small-Dose Bupivacaine in Volunteers Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2005; 100(2): 566 - 572. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. F. Gonter and D. J. Kopacz Spinal 2-Chloroprocaine: A Comparison with Procaine in Volunteers Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2005; 100(2): 573 - 579. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. E. Kouri and D. J. Kopacz Spinal 2-Chloroprocaine: A Comparison with Lidocaine in Volunteers Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2004; 98(1): 75 - 80. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. N. Smith, D. J. Kopacz, and S. B. McDonald Spinal 2-Chloroprocaine: A Dose-Ranging Study and the Effect of Added Epinephrine Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2004; 98(1): 81 - 88. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. T. Warren and D. J. Kopacz Spinal 2-Chloroprocaine: The Effect of Added Dextrose Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2004; 98(1): 95 - 101. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]