Abstract
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 ± 23vs 60 ± 24, 67 ± 14 min,P < 0.01; 8 mlvs 4, 6 ml) and slower recovery times (sensory recovery: 188 ± 27vs 142 ± 27, 157 ± 28 min,P < 0.01; 8 mlvs 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.
Résumé
Objectif
Comparer le blocage sensitif et moteur produit par trois différents volumes de lidocaïne intrathécale à 1% et déterminer ainsi le volume approprié pour une chirurgie des membres inférieurs et du périnée.
Méthode
Quarante-huit patients devant subir une chirurgie des membres inférieurs ou du périnée ont été choisis au hasard pour recevoir 4, 6 ou 8 ml de lidocaïne intrathécale à 1%. Le début, l’étendue, la durée et la régression de l’analgésie et du blocage moteur et les effets secondaires ont été évalués (par un observateur impartial autant que possible).
Résultats
Dans les groupes ayant reçu 6 ml (T8 ± 3) ou 8 ml (T4 ± 1,7) l’extension maximale en direction céphalique a été plus haute que dans le groupe ayant reçu 4 ml (T12 ± 2,2;P < 0,01). Dans le groupe à 4 ml, chez six patients (33%) l’analgésie n’a pas atteint T12 et quatre (22%) n’ont pas eu de blocage moteur complet. Les patients à qui on a donné 8 ml ont eu un blocage de plus longue durée (durée à T12: 104 ± 23vs 60 ± 24, 67 ± 14 min,P < 0,01; 8 mlvs 4, 6 ml) et une récupération plus lente (récupération sensitive: 188 ± 27vs 142 ± 27, 157 ± 28 min,P < 0,01; 8 mlvs 4, 6 ml). Deux patients (18%) du groupe à 8 ml et un (5%) du groupe à 6 ml ont eu de l’hypotension transitoire.
Conclusion
Quatre millilitres de lidocaïne intrathécale à 1% constituent une dose appropriée pour une chirurgie du périnée, mais pour une intervention aux membres inférieurs, 6 ml sont plus efficaces, puisqu’ils fournissent régulièrement une analgésie sensorielle au-dessus du dermatome de L1 et un blocage moteur complet. Huit millilitres produisent un blocage inutilement haut accompagné d’une plus grande incidence d’hypotension.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Rigler ML, Drasner K, Krejcie C, et al. Cauda equina syndrome after continuous spinal anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1991; 72: 275–81.
Schell RM, Brauer FS, Cole DJ, Applegate RL II. Persistent sacral nerve root deficits after continuous spinal anaesthesia. Can J Anaesth 1991; 38: 908–11.
Schneider M, Ettlin T, Kaufmann M, et al. Transient neurologic toxicity after hyperbaric subarachnoid anesthesia with 5% lidocaine. Anesth Analg 1993; 76: 1154–7.
Pinczower GR, Chadwick HS, Woodland R, Lowmiller M. Bilateral leg pain following spinal anaesthesia. Can J Anaesth 1995; 42: 217–20.
Lambert LA, Lambert DH, Strichartz GR. Irreversible conduction block in isolated nerve by high concentrations of local anesthetics. Anesthesiology 1994; 80: 1082–93.
Bainton CR, Strichartz GR. Concentration dependence of lidocaine-induced irreversible conduction loss in frog nerve. Anesthesiology 1994; 81: 657–67.
Stout RJ, Toma C. Further trials of lignocaine in spinal anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 1959; 31: 171–81.
Toft P, Bruun-Mogensen Chr, Kristensen J, Hole P. A comparison of glucose-free 2% lidocaine and hyperbaric 5% lidocaine for spinal anaesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1990; 34: 109–13.
Kristensen J, Helbo-Hansen HS, Toft P, Hole P. Spinal anaesthesia with glucose-free 2% lignocaine. Effect of different volumes. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1989; 33: 53–7.
Kumar A, Bala I, Bhukal I, Singh H. Spinal anaesthesia with lidocaine 2% for Caesarean section. Can J Anaesth 1992; 39: 915–9.
Williams N, Doyle A, Brighouse D. Spinal anaesthesia for transurethral surgery: comparison of 2% lignocaine and hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine. Br J Anaesth 1995; 75: 9–11.
Sheskey MC, Rocco AG, Bizzarri-Schmid M, Francis DM, Edstrom H, Covino BG. A dose-response study of bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1983; 62: 931–5.
Tay DHB, Tay SM, Thomas E. High-volume spinal anaesthesia. A dose-response study of bupivacaine 0.125%. Anaesth Intensive Care 1992; 20: 443–7.
Axelsson KH, Edström HH, Sundberg AEA, Widman GB. Spinal anaesthesia with hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine: effects of volume. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1982; 26: 439–45.
Van Zundert AA, De Wolf AM, Vaes L, Soetens M. High-volume spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine 0.125% for cesarean section. Anesthesiology 1988; 69: 998–1003.
Phillips OC, Ebner H, Nelson AT, Black MH. Neurologic complications following spinal anesthesia with lidocaine: a prospective review of 10,440 cases. Anesthesiology 1969; 30: 284–9.
Quaynor H, Corbey M, Berg P. Spinal anaesthesia in day-care surgery with a 26-gauge needle. Br J Anaesth 1990; 65: 766–9.
Brown EM, Elman DS. Postoperative backache. Anesth Analg 1961; 40: 683–5.
Urbach KF, Lee WR, Sheely LL, Lang FL, Sharp RP. Spinal or general anesthesia for inguinal hernia repair? A comparison of certain complications in a controlled series. JAMA 1964; 190: 137–41.
Pollock JE, Neal JM, Stephenson CA, Wiley CE. Prospective study of the incidence of transient radicular irritation in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1996; 84: 1361–7.
Hampl KF, Schneider MC, Pargger H, Gut J, Drewe J, Drasner K. A similar incidence of transient neurologic symptoms after spinal anesthesia with 2% and 5% lidocaine. Anesth Analg 1996; 83: 1051–4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Liam, BL., Yim, CF. & Chong, JL. Dose response study of lidocaine 1% for spinal anaesthesia for lower limb and perineal surgery. Can J Anaesth 45, 645–650 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03012094
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03012094