Bupivacaine caudal epidural anesthesia: Assessing the effect of general anesthetic technique on block onset

Paediatric Anaesthesia

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 255-262

  Ingelmo, P M ^a,b   Bendall, E J ^c   Frawley, G ^c   Locatelli, B G ^d   Milan, B ^a,b   Lodetti, D ^d   Fumagalli, R ^a,b  

^a AO San Gerardo ^*  (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MILANO BICOCCA   (Italy)

^c ROYAL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^d OSPEDALI RIUNITI   (Italy)

Author keywords

Caudal; Epidural; Motor block; TIVA; Volatile

Indexed keywords

ATROPINE; BUPIVACAINE; FENTANYL; LOCAL ANESTHETIC AGENT; MIDAZOLAM; PROPOFOL; SEVOFLURANE;

AGE DISTRIBUTION; ANESTHESIA INDUCTION; ANESTHETIC RECOVERY; AROUSAL; ARTICLE; CAUDAL ANESTHESIA; CHILD; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISTRESS SYNDROME; EPIDURAL ANESTHESIA; FEMALE; GENERAL ANESTHESIA; GENERAL SURGERY; HUMAN; HYPOTENSION; IMMOBILIZATION; LEG MOVEMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PANIC; PEROPERATIVE CARE; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UROLOGIC SURGERY;

ADOLESCENT; AGE FACTORS; AMBULATORY SURGICAL PROCEDURES; ANESTHESIA, EPIDURAL; ANESTHESIA, GENERAL; ANESTHETICS, INHALATION; ANESTHETICS, INTRAVENOUS; ANESTHETICS, LOCAL; BUPIVACAINE; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; DRUG INTERACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT; MALE; METHYL ETHERS; PROPOFOL; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 33846611392     PISSN: 11555645     EISSN: 14609592     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2006.02090.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Reinso-Barbero F, Martinez-Garcia E, Hernandez-Gancedo C et al. The effect of epidural bupivacaine on maintenance requirements of sevoflurane evaluated by bispectral index in children. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2006; 23: 460-464.
2. Antognini J, Jinks S, Atherley R et al. Spinal anaesthesia indirectly depresses cortical activity associated with electrical stimulation of the reticular formation. BJA 2003; 91: 233-238.
3. Hodgson P, Liu S, Gras TW. Does epidural anaesthesia have general anaesthetic effects? Anesthesiology 1999; 91: 1687-1692.
4. Ingelmo P, Locatelli B, Fumagalli R et al. Does general anaesthesia affect regional anaesthesia quality? Eur J Anaesth 2003; 20: S29; 101.
5. Antognini JF, Carstens E. A simple, quantifiable and accurate method for applying a noxious mechanical stimulus. Anesth Analg 1998; 87: 1446-1449.
6. Buttner W, Finke W. Analysis of behavioural and physiological parameters for the assessment of post operative analgesic demand in newborns, infants and young children. Paediatr Anaesth 2000; 10: 199-204.
7. Astuto M, Disma N, Arena C. Levobupivacaine 0.25% compared with ropivacaine 0.25% by the caudal route in children. Eur J Anaesth 2003; 20: 826-830.
8. Locatelli B, Ingelmo P, Sonzogni V et al. Randomized, double-blind, phase III, controlled trial comparing levobupivacaine 0.25%, ropivacaine 0.25% and bupivacaine 0.25% by the caudal route in children. Br J Anaesth 2005; 94: 366-371.
9. Ivani G, De Negri P, Conio A et al. Comparison of racemic bupivacaine, ropivacaine and levo-bupivacaine for pediatric caudal anesthesia: effects on postoperative analgesia and motor block. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2002; 27: 157-161.
10. Petersen-Felix S, Arendt-Nielsen L. Pain measurement. In: Zbinden AM, Thomson D, eds. Conducting Research in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine. Oxford: Butterworth, 2001: 372-387.
11. Bosenberg A, Ivani G. Regional anaesthesia - children are different. Paediatr Anaesth 1998; 8: 447-450.
12. Hayashida M, Fukunaga A, Hanaoka K. An animal model for surgical anesthesia and analgesia: characterization with isoflurane anesthesia and remifentanil analgesia. Anesth Analg 2003; 97: 1340-1346.
13. Sakura S, Sumi M, Yamada Y et al. Quantitative and selective assessment of sensory block during lumbar epidural anaesthesia with 1 or 2% lidocaine. BJA 1998; 81: 718-722.
14. Emery J, Ho D, MacKeen L et al. Pupillary reflex dilation and skin temperature to assess sensory level during combined general and caudal anaesthesia in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2004; 14: 768-774.
15. Matute E, Rivera-Arconada I, Lòpez-Garcìa JA. Effects of propofol and sevoflurane on the excitability of rat spinal motoneurones and nociceptive reflexes in vitro. Br J Anaesth 2004; 93: 422-427.
16. Kammer T, Rehberg B, Menne D et al. Propofol and sevoflurane in subanesthetic concentrations act preferentially on the spinal cord. Anesthesiology 2002; 97: 1416-1425.
17. Sonner JM, Antognini JF, Dutton RC et al. Inhaled anesthetics and immobility: mechanisms, mysteries and minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration. Anesth Analg 2003; 97: 718-740.
18. Rampril IJ. Anaesthetic potency is not altered after hypothermic spinal cord transection in rats. Anesthesiology 1994; 80: 606-610.
19. Rampil I, King B. Volatile anaesthetics depress spinal motor neurons. Anesthesiology 1996; 85: 129-134.
20. King BS, Rampil I. Anaesthetic depression of spinal motor neurons may contribute to lack of movement in response to noxious stimuli. Anesthesiology 1994; 81: 1484-1492.
21. Kendig J. In vitro networks: subcortical mechanisms of anaesthetic action. Br J Anaesth 2002; 89: 91-101.
22. Sonner JM, Zhang Y, Stabernack C et al. GABA (A) receptor blockade antagonizes the immobilizing action of propofol but not ketamine or isoflurane in a dose-related manner. Anesth Analg 2003; 96: 706-712.
23. Grasshoff C, Antkowiak B. Propofol and sevoflurane depress spinal neurons in vitro via different molecular targets. Anesthesiology 2004; 101: 1167-1176.
24. Grasshoff C, Rudolph U, Antkowiak B. Molecular and systemic mechanisms of general anaesthesia: the multi-site and multiple receptor mechanisms concept. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2005; 18: 386-391.
25. A receptors do not mediate the immobility produced by isoflurane. Anesth Analg 2004; 99: 85-90.
26. Zhang Y, Laster M, Hara K et al. Glycine receptors mediate part of the immobility produced by inhaled anesthetics. Anesth Analg 2003; 96: 97-101.
27. Baars J, Kalisch D, Herold KF et al. Concentration dependent suppression of F wave by sevoflurane does not predict immobility to painful stimuli in humans. Br J Anaesth 2005; 95: 789-797.
28. Katoh T, Kobayashi S, Suzuki A et al. Fentanyl augments block of sympathetic responses to skin incision during sevoflurane anesthesia in children. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84: 63-66.
29. Absalom A, Kenny G. Closed look control of propofol anaesthesia using BIS: performance assessment in patients receiving computer controlled propofol and manually controlled remifentanil infusions for minor surgery. Br J Anaesth 2003; 90: 737-741.
30. Glass PS, Doherty M, Jacobs JR et al. Plasma concentration of fentanyl with 70% nitrous oxide, to prevent movement at skin incision. Anesthesiology 1993; 78: 842-847.
31. -1) of remifentanil on MAC-BAR of sevoflurane. Anesthesiology 2004; 100: 255-259.
32. Daniel M, Weiskopf R, Noorani M et al. Fentanyl augments the blockade of the sympathetic response to incision (MAC-BAR) produced by desflurane and isoflurane. Desflurane and isoflurane MAC-BAR with and without fentanyl. Anesthesiology 1998; 88: 43-49.
33. Breschan C, Jost R, Krumpholz R et al. A prospective study comparing the analgesic efficacy of levobupivacaine, ropivacaine and bupivacaine in pediatric patients undergoing caudal blockade. Paediatr Anaesth 2005; 15: 301-306.
34. Ivani G, De Negri P, Lonnqvist PA et al. Caudal anaesthesia for minor pediatric surgery: a prospective randomized comparison of ropivacaine 0.2% vs. levobupivacaine 0.2%. Paediatr Anaesth 2005; 15: 491-494.
35. Ingelmo PM, Locatelli BG, Sonzogni V et al. Caudal 0.2% ropivacaine is less effective during operation than 0.2% levobupivacaine and 0.2% bupivacaine: a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Paediatr Anaesth 2006; 16: 955-961.