Performing epidural insertion under general anaesthesia

A Comparative Study for Post Operative Analgesia in the Emergency Laparotomies: Thoracic Epidural Ropivacaine with Nalbuphine and Ropivacaine with Butorphanol

BACKGROUND

Adequate postoperative pain therapy for emergency abdominal surgeries is important far beyond the perioperative period because sensitization to painful stimuli can cause postoperative morbidity. A prospective, double-blind, randomized study was carried out to compare the quality of postoperative analgesia and side-effect profile between epidurally administered butorphanol and nalbuphine as an adjuvant to 0.2% ropivacaine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of eighty patients, 43 men and 37 women between the age of 18 and 65 years of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Class I E and II E, who underwent intestinal perforation repair surgery were randomly allocated into two groups ropivacaine with butorphanol (RB) and ropivacaine with nalbuphine (RN), comprising of 40 patients each. Group RB received 0.2% ropivacaine containing 2 mg butorphanol while Group RN received 0.2% ropivacaine containing 10 mg nalbuphine through thoracic epidural catheter. Quality of analgesia, cardiorespiratory parameters, side-effects, and the need of rescue intravenous analgesia were observed.

RESULTS

The demographic profile and ASA Class were comparable between the groups. RN group had good quality of analgesia and stable cardiorespiratory parameters for the initial 6 h of postoperative period, after which they were comparable in both groups. Furthermore, the need of rescue analgesia was higher (20%) in the RB group during the first 6 h. The side-effect profile was comparable with a little higher incidence of nausea in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Thoracic epidurally administered ropivacaine with nalbuphine is more effective than ropivacaine with butorphanol for immediate postoperative pain relief in patients undergoing emergency exploratory laparotomy.

Innovative approaches to neuraxial blockade in children: the introduction of epidural nerve root stimulation and ultrasound guidance for epidural catheter placement

Continuous epidural blockade remains the cornerstone of pediatric regional anesthesia. However, the risk of catastrophic trauma to the spinal cord when inserting direct thoracic and high lumbar epidural needles in anesthetized or heavily sedated pediatric patients is a concern. To reduce this risk, research has focused on low lumbar or caudal blocks (ie, avoiding the spinal cord) and threading catheters from distal puncture sites in a cephalad direction. However, with conventional epidural techniques, including loss-of-resistance for localization of the needle, optimal catheter tip placement is difficult to assess because considerable distances are required during threading. Novel approaches include electrical epidural stimulation for physiological confirmation and segmental localization of epidural catheters, and ultrasound guidance for assessing related neuroanatomy and real-time observation of the needle puncture and, potentially, catheter advancement. The present article provides a brief and focused review of these two advances, and outlines recent clinical experiences relevant to pediatric epidural anesthesia.

Can Direct Spinal Cord Injury Occur Without Paresthesia? A Report of Delayed Spinal Cord Injury After Epidural Placement in an Awake Patient

We discuss the etiology of a delayed spinal cord injury after epidural anesthesia without paresthesia. The description of such a case in an awake, adult patient who underwent a Whipple resection is provided. An epidural was performed at approximately the T8-9 interspace with the patient in the sitting position after 1 mg of midazolam was administered. On the first attempt, a dural puncture occurred. The patient did not report any paresthesia or pain. The needle was withdrawn and a second attempt was made one interspace lower. At this level, the epidural catheter was advanced into the epidural space uneventfully. Postoperatively, the patient suffered decreased motor function in the right leg. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed high signal intensity within the spinal cord, indicating cord edema compatible with direct needle trauma. An extradural fluid collection consistent with a hematoma was also noted. Although it may be impossible to confirm if the spinal cord injury was a result of direct needle trauma, hematoma, or a combination of needle trauma and hematoma, these events clearly raise the important question of whether an awake patient will always report paresthesia secondary to spinal cord trauma.

IMPLICATIONS

This case reminds anesthesiologists that we should not simply assume paresthesia will always occur and be reported if a needle encroaches on the spinal cord even in an awake patient.