Search

Study Objective: Spinal anesthesia is well suited for day-care surgery, however a persisting motor block after surgery can delay discharge. Among the new drugs available, chloroprocaine has been associated with a short onset time, and motor block duration and a quicker discharge. However, it is not clear if those outcomes are clinically significantly superior compared to those associated with the use of low-dose hyperbaric bupivacaine., Design: Aim of the study was to determine if spinal 2-chloroprocaine was superior to low-dose spinal bupivacaine regarding the following outcomes: onset time, block duration, time to ambulation and time to discharge., Patients/interventions: We performed a systematic literature search of the last 30 years using PubMed Embase and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. We included only blinded, prospective trials comparing chloroprocaine with a low dose of bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia. Low dose bupivacaine was defined as a dose of 10 mg or less. Outcomes of interest were time to motor block regression (primary outcome), time to ambulation and time to discharge (secondary outcomes), as indirect indicators of a complete recovery after spinal anesthesia., Main Results: Compared to a low dose bupivacaine, spinal 2-chloroprocaine was associated with significantly faster motor and sensory block regression (pMD = -57 min-140.3 min; P = 0.015 and <0.001 respectively), a significantly shorter time to ambulation and an earlier discharge (pMD = -84.6 min; P < 0.001 and pMD = -88.6 min and <0.001 respectively). Onset time did not differ between the two drugs (pMD = -1.1 min; P = 0.118)., Conclusions: Spinal 2-chloroprocaine has a shorter motor block duration, a significantly quicker time to ambulation and time to discharge compared to low dose hyperbaric bupivacaine and may be advantageous when spinal anesthesia is performed for day case surgery., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: This prospective, observer-blinded, randomised, multicentre study aimed at determining the non-inferiority of 50 mg of plain 1% 2-chloroprocaine vs. 10 mg of 0.5% plain bupivacaine in terms of sensory block onset time at T10 after spinal injection. The study hypothesis was that the difference in onset times of sensory block to T10 between the two drugs is ≤ 4 min., Methods: One hundred and thirty patients undergoing lower abdominal or lower limb procedures (≤ 40 min) were randomised to receive one of two treatments: 50 mg of plain 1% 2-chloroprocaine (Group C, n = 66) or 10 mg of plain 0.5% bupivacaine (Group B, n = 64). Times to sensory and motor block onsets, maximum sensory block level, readiness for surgery, regression of sensory and motor blocks, first analgesic requirements, unassisted ambulation, home discharge, and side effects after 24 h and 7 days were registered blindly., Results: Chloroprocaine was comparable with plain 0.5% bupivacaine in terms of time to sensory block at T10 level. Group C showed faster onsets of motor block (5 vs. 6 min), maximum sensory block level (8.5 vs. 14 min), resolution of sensory (105 vs. 225 min) and motor (100 vs. 210 min) blocks, unassisted ambulation (142.5 vs. 290.5 min), first analgesic requirement (120 vs. 293.5 min), and home discharge (150 vs. 325 min) (all comparisons, P < 0.05). No chloroprocaine patient developed transient neurological symptoms., Conclusion: Spinal anaesthesia with 50 mg of plain 1% 2-chloroprocaine is similar to 10 mg of plain 0.5% bupivacaine in terms of onset of sensory block at T10 but shows quicker recovery from anaesthesia than with 0.5% bupivacaine., (© 2014 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background and Objectives: Prior to this investigation, there was no approach to compare both the potency of local anesthetics and their time course of action in a reproducible nociceptive system in humans. We tested whether the vascularly isolated vein segment is appropriate for such an approach., Methods: In six healthy men, a hand vein segment was vascularly isolated and intraluminally stimulated with electropulses of constant current intensity. The subjects rated pain between threshold and maximally tolerable pain on a visual analogue scale. For determining minimal blocking concentrations (a measure of potency), the vein segment was continuously perfused with Tyrode's solution with increasing concentrations of bupivacaine or procaine for at least 10 minutes each until pain was completely blocked. Subsequently, the respective local anesthetic was rinsed off with Tyrode's solution to determine the time course of recovery., Results: Both bupivacaine and procaine blocked pain in a concentration-related fashion, the minimal blocking concentrations being 1.6 (0.6-1.9; median and range) mmol/L for bupivacaine and 15.0 (7.5-22.5) mmol/L for procaine. Whereas the onset of block (time of 50% block) did not differ significantly between bupivacaine and procaine [43 s (range, 3-80) vs 53 s (range, 30-115)], local anesthesia lasted significantly longer after application of bupivacaine [278 s (range, 215-325)] than after procaine [183 s (range, 125-225)]., Conclusions: The vascularly isolated vein segment is well suited to compare in vivo the properties of local anesthetics with a minimally invasive approach at a reproducible nociceptive system in humans.