Print ISSN:-2249-8176

Online ISSN:-2348-7682

CODEN : PJMSD7

Current Issue

Year 2024

Volume: 14 , Issue: 2

  • Article highlights
  • Article tables
  • Article images

Article Access statistics

Viewed: 162

Emailed: 0

PDF Downloaded: 236


Gaddam, Yerrathota, Rapaka, and Nallappagari: Efficacy of 2-chloroprocaine for spinal anesthesia compared to 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine: A randomized controlled study


Introduction

Regional anesthesia is preferred for lower limb surgeries as well as lower abdominal surgeries. Patient remains awake and it avoids the airway related problems. Compared to epidural anesthesia, spinal anesthesia is simple and rapid. It was first used with cocaine in 1851. Quincke’s technique was used in 1899 by August Bier who also used cocaine as first real spinal anesthesia.1

In ambulatory surgeries, the drug of choice in spinal anesthesia was lignocaine. The onset of action is rapid with it. It produces good motor block. But, it is found to be associated with symptoms of the central nervous system although for short time. it can also lead to cauda equine syndrome. 2, 3

Studies have shown that small doses of hyperbaric bupivacaine may be a useful alternative in small doses. But, block density achieved is not sufficient with it. Duration of action of 2-chloroprocaine (2-CP) is short. 4 It has been reported as safe and reliable since 1952. It was commonly used during obstetric procedures. 5 In 1980s, nine cases of neurotoxicity were reported following the use of 2-chloroprocaine (2-CP). But, Taniguchi et al found that it was due to low pH and antioxidant sodium bisulfite. Further studies confirmed that it was safe to use the drug. It provides spinal anesthesia adequately. 6, 7, 8

Various studies 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 subsequently confirmed the safety profile of 2-chloroprocaine in the dose of 40-50 mg. spinal anesthesia achieved was adequate which lasted for 45-60 min. it is commonly used in lower limb and lower abdominal surgeries.

The aim of this study was to study efficacy of 2-chloroprocaine for spinal anesthesia compared to 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine.

Materials and Methods

This was a randomized controlled study. We used prospective double blind method. The study was done in 100 patients at Malla Reddy Narayana multispecialty hospital, Hyderabad. Random allocation software was used to randomize patients in two groups. This was a parallel trial. There were no changes to the trial after it was initiated.

Patients aged 20-50 years of either gender, undergoing elective surgical procedures using the spinal anesthesia, with duration of surgery less than 40 min were included in the present study. Patients having any chronic diseases as well as pregnant women were excluded.

Random allocation software was used to randomize patients in two groups. Group 1 patients (N=50) received 4 ml 1% 2-chloroprocaine while Group 2 patients (N=50) were given 2.5 ml 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Random allocation software was used to randomize the patients in two groups.

All patients underwent the pre-anesthetic check-up. Based on the fitness report, they were posted for surgery.

The person administering spinal anesthesia has not been involved in recording data. An independent observer not involved in drug preparation had measured subsequent parameters. The time counting was initiated when intrathecal injection was given. During the first 10 minutes, the various parameters (Hemodynamic parameters, SpO2 and respiratory rate) were recorded at an interval of every two minutes. After the first 10 minutes, till the surgery is over, these same parameters were recorded every 10 minutes. During the period after the surgery is over, same parameters were recorded every half an hour.

The time at which the sensory block was achieved was noted. The highest point of sensory block was also noted down. Bromage scale was used to assess the motor block.

Time of onset of sensory blockade, the height of sensory blockade, Onset of motor blockade as per Bromage scale, two segment regression time, Quality of sensory blockade (good, satisfactory, poor), Total duration of analgesia, Incidence of adverse effects, Time of ambulation, and Time of voiding of urine were also recorded.

Onset of sensory blockade was defined as the time duration between giving the drug and no pain felt by patient at T10 level.

Duration of sensory blockade was defined as time taken from the onset of sensory blockade till the two-segment regression time.

Quality of sensory blockade was appreciated as good, satisfactory, poor. Good quality of sensory blockade was considered when the it was adequate for surgical procedure without any analgesia. Poor quality of sensory blockade was considered when analgesia was required.

Statistical analysis

SPSS version 17.0 was used for data analysis. T test was used for comparison while using the continuous variables. P<0.05 was taken as statistical significance.

Results

Table 1

Clinical characteristics of two groups

Group I

Group II

t

p

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Age (years)

39.72

11.49

36.44

10.99

1.458

0.148

Pulse rate/min

77.6

7.97

77.7

7.39

0.091

0.928

Mean arterial pressure (mmHg)

77.5

6.3

75.8

8.8

1.09

0.278

SPO2

99.74

0.56

99.58

0.78

1.14

0.245

Both the groups were comparable for age, pulse rate, Mean arterial pressure and SPO2 (Table 1).

Table 2

Distribution of patients based on genderand ASA Grade

Parameters

Group I

Group II

Chi square

p

Number

%

Number

%

Sex

Male

40

80

40

80

0

1

Female

10

20

10

20

ASA grade

I

39

78

38

76

0

0.999

II

11

22

12

24

Both the groups were comparable for sex and ASA grade (Table 2)

Table 3

Efficacy of 2-chloroprocaine for spinal anesthesia compared to 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine

Parameters

Group I (2-chloroprocaine)

Group II (0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine)

t

p

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Sensory onset (min)

3.9

1.18

5.6

1.36

6.72

<0.001

Height of Sensory blockade (min)

7.18

1.75

8.7

1.3

4.89

<0.001

Time for two segment regression (min)

53.46

8.52

73.2

4.1

14.77

<0.001

Duration of motor block (min)

79.44

9.5

95.4

8.2

9.03

<0.001

Time to void urine (min)

134.1

24.4

271.8

33.1

23.67

<0.001

All studied parameters like Sensory onset (min), Height of Sensory blockade (min), Time for two segment regression (min), Duration of motor block (min), Time to void urine (min) were significantly lower in group I patients who received 2-chloroprocaine compared to group II patients who received 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (p<0.05). (Table 3)

Table 4

Comparison of Modified Bromage Score and adverse events in two groups

Group I

Group II

Chi square

p

No.

%

No.

%

Modified Bromage scale

2 & 3

46

92

40

80

2.078

0.149

4

4

8

10

20

Adverse events

Yes

2

4

3

6

0

1

No

48

96

47

94

The scores of modified Bromage scale and the occurrence of adverse events were found to be comparable. There were not statistically significant differences in two groups with this regard (p>0.05). (Table 4)

Discussion

The present study findings are similar to the study done by Yoos et al. 14 They compared 2-CP 40 mg with bupivacaine 7.5 mg. they noted that the duration provided by the 2-CP was adequate. At the same time, the density of the block with the use of 2-CP was also adequate. The block was achieved very fast. The patients were able to return to ambulation in quick time.

Time for two segment regression was quicker with the use of the 2-chloropocaine when compared to 0.5% Hyperbaric Bupivacaine in the present study. Similar findings were also reported by Yoos et al 14 and Kopacz an Lacasse et al study. 15

Yoos et al 14 used the 2-chloropocaine in the dose of 40 mg. Bupivacaine was used in the dose of 7.5 mg in second group of patients. They carried out a randomized controlled blinded trial. They studied the anesthesia test using the pin prick, strength of the muscles, electric stimulation. They also studied the simulated discharge criteria. Lacasse et al 15 used hyperbaric Bupivacaine in the dose of 7.5 mg. they also used 2-chloropocaine (2%) in the dose of 40 mg in another group of patients. From both studies, it is clear that 2-chloropocaine was more effective than hyperbaric bupivacaine. The discharge time was lesser with 2-chloropocaine compared to hyperbaric bupivacaine. This difference was found to be statistically significant (p<0.05). The time for two segment regression was significantly longer with the hyperbaric bupivacaine compared to the 2-chloropocaine. The time for regression to L1 was significantly more with hyperbaric bupivacaine compared to 2-chloropocaine. The duration of motor blockade was also significantly lesser with 2-chloropocaine. Time to ambulation was also significantly more with hyperbaric bupivacaine. The time for complete regression to S2 was significantly more with hyperbaric bupivacaine.

In the present study patients who received the 2-Chloroprocaine were able to void the urine earlier than those patients who received the hyperbaric bupivacaine. Breebaart et al16 also found from their study that patients who received the 2-Chloroprocaine were able to void the urine earlier than those patients who received the hyperbaric bupivacaine. This difference was found to be statistically significant (p<0.05).

In the present study it was noticed that patients who received the 2-Chloroprocaine were discharged from the hospital earlier compared to those patients who received the hyperbaric bupivacaine.

Sell and Pitkanen 17 used the 2-Chloroprocaine in doses ranging from 35-50 mg. the increment in the dose for each of the four groups of patients was of 5 mg. They observed that the time to discharge was slower in patients who received higher doses compared to patients who received lower doses. Similar observation was noticed with respect to the regression of sensory block. This difference was found to be statistically significant. They also observed that the higher level block was similar in four groups. They also noticed that time required for complete block regression was also similar in four groups of the patients.

Mulroy et al 18 stated that the time to void urine should not be taken as a mandatory parameter if they received the short acting drugs.

Hejtmanek and Pollock 19 carried out a retrospective study. They observed that neurotoxicity was not seen in patients who received the 2-CP drug. They stated that this drug was used as a drug of choice in their tertiary care center. Because it is safe and effective compared to lidocaine. So, this drug can be used in short ambulatory surgeries.

Casati et al 20 compared 2-CP with lidocaine. They found that the patients who received 2-CP had significantly faster recovery compared to patients who received the lidocaine (p<0.05). 2-CP was significantly more effective in faster time-to-ambulation. But, in terms of discharge of the patients from the hospital, both the groups were comparable.

Conclusion

Based on the present study findings in the given study patients we conclude that 1% 2-Chloroprocaine 40 mg for intrathecal injection of lower limb and lower abdominal surgeries is more effective than 0.5% Hyperbaric Bupivacaine. More multi-centric studies with larger sample size may be required to prove present study conclusion.

Source of Funding

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1 

DL Brown RD Miller Miller’s AnesthesiaSpinal, epidural and caudal anesthesia7th Philadelphia: Elsevier Churchill livingstone165360

2 

MP Corbey AB Bach Transient radicular irritation (TRI) after spinal anaesthesia in day-care surgeryActa Anesthesiol Scand19984244259

3 

DJ Henderson KA Faccenda LM Morrison Transient radicular irritation with intrathecal plain LignocaineActa Anaesthesiol Scand19984233768

4 

A Fanelli D Ghisi M Allergi Is spinal anaesthesia a suitable technique for ultra-short outpatient procedures?Acta Biomed20138417680

5 

FF Foldes PG MacNall 2-Chloroprocaine: a new local anesthetic agentAnesthesiology195213328796

6 

M Tanguchi AW Bollen K Drasner Sodium bisulfite: Scape goat for Chlorprocaine neurotoxicity?Anesthesiology200410018591

7 

AJ Gissen S Datta D Lambert The Chlorprocaine controversy II: is Chlorprocaine neurotoxic?Reg Anesth1984634457

8 

BC Wang DE Hitman NI Spiekholz H Turndorf Chronic neurological deficits and Nesacaine-CE--an effect of the anesthetic, 2-chloroprocaine, or the antioxidant, sodium bisulfite?Anesth Analg19846344457

9 

ME Kouri DJ Kopacz Spinal 2-chloroprocaine: a comparison with lidocaine in volunteersAnesth Analg20049817580

10 

KN Smith DJ Kopacz SB Mcdonald Spinal 2-chloroprocaine: a dose - ranging study and the effect of added epinephrineAnesth Analg2004981818

11 

DJ Kopacz Spinal Chlorprocaine: minimum effective doseReg Anesth Pain Med20053013642

12 

JR Yoos DJ Kopacz Spinal 2-chloroprocaine for surgery: an initial 10-month experienceAnesth Analg200410025538

13 

P Timo Four Years’ experience with 1%Chloroprocaine for Spinal anesthesia in ambulatory anesthesiaReg Anesth Pain Med20053051310.1016/J.RAPM.2005.07.096

14 

JR Yoos DJ Kopacz Spinal 2-chloroprocaine: a comparison with small-dose bupivacaine in volunteersAnesth Analg200510056672

15 

MA Lacasse JD Roy J Forget Comparison of bupivacaine and 2-chloroprocaine for spinal anesthesia for outpatient surgery: a double-blind randomized trialCan J Anesth201158438491

16 

MB Breebaart A Teune LA Sermeus MP Vercauteren Intrathecal Chlorprocaine vs lidocaine in day-case surgery: recovery, discharge and effect of pre-hydration on micturitionActa Anesthesiol Scand201458220613

17 

A Sell T Tein M Pitkanen Spinal 2-chloroprocaine: effective dose for ambulatory surgeryActa Anesthesiol Scand20085256959

18 

MF Mulroy FV Salinas KL Larkin NL Polissar Ambulatory surgery patients may be discharged before voiding after short-acting spinal and epidural anesthesiaAnesthesiol20029723159

19 

MR Hejtmanek JE Pollock Chlorprocaine for spinal anesthesia: a retrospective analysisActa Anesth Scand201155326772

20 

A Casati G Danelli M Berti A Fioro A Fanelli C Benassi Intrathecal 2-chloroprocaine for lower limb outpatient surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, clinical evaluationAnesth Analg200610312348



jats-html.xsl

© 2024 Published by Innovative Publication Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (creativecommons.org)