B. Ben-david et al., A comparison of minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia and local anesthesia/propofol infusion for outpatient knee arthroscopy, ANESTH ANAL, 93(2), 2001, pp. 319-325
Citations number
27
Categorie Soggetti
Aneshtesia & Intensive Care","Medical Research Diagnosis & Treatment
Traditional methods of spinal anesthesia have proven problematic in the out
patient setting. Minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia (SAB(MLF)) m
ay be the adaptation necessary to reestablish spinal anesthesia in this ven
ue. One hundred patients scheduled for outpatient knee arthroscopy were ran
domized to receive either local anesthesia plus a titrated IV propofol infu
sion (LA/PI) or SAB(MLF) using 20 mg lidocaine 0.5% + 20 mug fentanyl. Pati
ents received midazolam 0.02-0.03 mg/kg IV and fentanyl 0.75-1.0 mug/kg TV
upon arrival in the operating room before lumbar puncture or propofol infus
ion. The propofol infusion was begun at 50-75 mug . kg(-1) . min(-1) and ti
trated to maintain patient comfort. Boluses (200-400 mug/kg) were given as
needed. Local anesthesia included 30 mL lidocaine 1% with epinephrine 1:200
,000 intraarticularly plus 10 mL at the portal sites. Three patients (6%) i
n the LA/PI group versus none in the SAB(MLF) group required general anesth
esia. Airway support was required in 54% of the LA/PI patients and in none
of the SAB(MLF) patients. Total operating room time (43 vs 45 min), time to
home readiness (43 vs 45 min), actual discharge times (73.3 min in both gr
oups), and the incidence of discharge >90 min (22% vs 24%) were the same fo
r both LA/PI and SAB(MLF) groups. LA/PI and SAB(MLF) groups differed in ter
ms of postoperative pruritus (8% vs 68%), pain (44% vs 20%), nausea (8% vs
22%), and ability to void before discharge (56% vs 32%). One patient in eac
h group had mild difficulty initiating voiding at home, but neither require
d medical attention. In both groups, 90% of patients were either "satisfied
" or "very satisfied" with their anesthetic. The two techniques provided co
mparable patient satisfaction and efficiencies both intraoperatively and in
postoperative recovery and discharge. The efficiencies of these techniques
were not dependent on special provisions of the physical plant or the prac
tice model.