Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ropivacaine in spinal anesthesia. Methods We searched PubMed (1999 to 2008), OVID (1999 to 2008), EBSCO (1999 to 2008), The Cochrane Library (2000 to 2008), and CNKI (1999 to 2008) databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ropivacaine and bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia. The quality of the included RCTs was evaluated by two reviewers independently, and meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.0 software. Results Six RCTs were included. The methodological quality of them were all poor. Among the six RCTs, 215 patients received ropivacaine and 215 received bupivacaine. The results of meta-analyses showed that the motor-block time to complete block of ropivacaine was significantly shorter than that of bupivacaine (WMD=2.18 min, 95%CI 0.32 to 4.03, P=0.02). The motor-block time to complete recovery of ropivacaine was significantly shorter than that of bupivacaine for cesarean delivery in spinal anesthesia (SMD= – 1.82, 95%CI – 3.05 to – 0.59, P=0.004). The incidence rate of hypotension and bradycardia in spinal anestheisa with ropivacaine was lower than that with bupivacaine (OR=0.49, 95%CI 0.31 to 0.80, P=0.004; OR=0.40, 95%CI 0.03 to 4.99, P=0.47). Conclusion Equivalent doses of ropivacaine and bupivacaine provide similar analgesia in spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. However, haemodynamics in spinal anesthesia with ropivacaine fluctuate lightlier than with bupivacaine. Ropivacaine is suitable for spinal anesthesia in low-abdominal operations.
ObjectiveTo compare the anesthetic potency and influence on maternal hemodynamics among spinal anesthesia (SA), epidural anesthesia (EA) and combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA) for women undergoing cesarean sections. MethodsA total of 180 singleton term nulliparous pregnancies of American Sociaty of Anethesiologists physical status Ⅰor Ⅱ for cesarean sections in Guangyuan Central Hospital from January to December 2012 were allocated into three groups using the method of random number table. Patients in group SA received SA (n=60), group EA underwent EA (n=60) and patients in group CSEA accepted CSEA (n=60). Patients wderwent punere all placed in left lateral position. Group EA patients unctures at the L1-2 interspace and the volume of carbonated lidocaine used initially was 12-15 mL. Group SA and CSEA accepted the anesthesia at either L2-3 or L3-4 interspace. The volume for group SA was 0.75% bupivacaine 1.2 mL with 10% glucose solution 1 mL, and for group CSEA was 0.5% bupivacaine 1.4 mL with 10% glucose solution 0.8 mL. A catheter was inserted into the epidural space for 3-4 cm after spinal needle exit so as to add additional epidural medication according to the block level and the level of anesthesia subsidence. The values of the basis of blood pressure and heart rate, the lowest blood pressure and heart rate, umbilical venous blood gas, start effect and induction time of anesthesia and the highest block level of anesthesia were record. ResultsThere were statistically significant differences in terms of start effect time of anesthesia among the three groups (F=24.642, P<0.001). The start effect time of anesthesia in group SA and CSEA was significantly shorter than that in group EA (t=8.076, 7.996; P<0.05). The induction time of anesthesia in group SA was significantly shorter than those in group EA and CSEA (P<0.05). The lowest blood pressure and heart rate in group SA and CSEA were significantly lower than the values of basis (P<0.05). The lowest blood pressure and heart rate in group SA was significantly lower than that in group EA (P<0.05). The incidence of hypotension and bradycardia in group SA and CSEA was significantly higher than that in group EA (P<0.05). The block level of anesthesia in the three groups were at thoracic 8.12±1.22, 8.36±1.88 and 8.52±1.92 respectively, and there was no significant difference among the three groups (F=0.081, P=0.923). ConclusionEA and CSEA surpass SA in the choice of neuraxial anesthesia for cesarean sections, and 1.73% carbonated lidocaine for EA can improve anesthetic potency and better maintain relatively stable hemodynamic indexes.
ObjectiveTo study the proper time of first postoperative eating in patients after orthopedic surgery with spinal anesthesia. MethodsA total of 160 patients who underwent orthopedic surgery from April 2012 to November 2014 were divided into trial group and control group.The symptoms of hunger, thirst, throat discomfort, vomiting and bloating were evaluated at hour 4 and 8 after surgery.The first oral feeding time and the incidence of constipation were analyzed and compared between the two groups. ResultsThe incidence of hunger and thirst in the trial group was significantly lower than that in the control group at hour 4 after surgery (P < 0.05).There was no significant difference in the incidence of throat discomfort, vomiting and bloating between the trial group and the control group at hour 4 and 8 after surgery (P > 0.05).Compared with the control group, the first time of oral feeding was significantly earlier (P < 0.05) and the incidence of constipation was significantly lower (P < 0.05) in the trial group. ConclusionWithout adverse reactions, early postoperative eating can alleviate the hunger and thirst sensation of patients after orthopedic surgery with spinal anesthesia, and reduce the incidence of constipation.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of different rehydration strategies on the incidence of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension and neonatal outcomes during elective cesarean section.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochran Library, China National Knowledge Internet, VIP database, Wanfang database, and China Biology Medicine database from inception to January 2018, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the incidence of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension during elective cesarean section and neonatal outcomes of preloading or coloading. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias in the study. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 11 RCTs were included, including 894 parturients, of whom 448 cases in the preload group and 446 cases in the coload group. Comparing with the preload group, the incidence of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension during cesarean section in the coload group significantly decreased [risk ratio (RR)=1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.13, 1.43), P<0.000 1]. Subgroup analysis showed that in the crystalloid fluid group, the difference in the incidence of hypotension between the preload group and the coload group was statistically significant [RR=1.48, 95%CI (1.26, 1.73), P<0.000 01]; while in the colloidal fluid group, the difference in the the incidence of hypotension between the preload group and the coload group was not significant [RR=1.00, 95%CI (0.85, 1.17), P=0.96]. The lowest systolic blood pressure, the incidence of nausea and vomiting, and neonatal outcomes had no significant difference between the two groups.ConclusionsComparing with preloading crystalloid fluid, rapid infusion of crystalloid fluid at the same time implementation of spinal anesthesia could significantly reduce the incidence of hypotension during cesarean section while there was no superiority in infusion of colloid fluid. There was no significant effect on the severity of hypotension, nausea and vomiting, and neonatal outcomes. Due to the limitation of the quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusions need to be verified by more high-quality studies.