Anesthesia: Essays and Researches  Login  | Users Online: 156 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Search | Current Issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Copyright form | Subscribe | Advertise | Contacts
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 104-108

Comparison of oral versus intramuscular clonidine for the prolongation of bupivacaine spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries


1 Department of Anaesthesia (Trauma and Emergency), Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
2 Department of Medicine (Trauma and Emergency), Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Saurav Shekhar
Department of Anaesthesia (Trauma and Emergency), Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aer.aer_31_22

Rights and Permissions

Background: Spinal subarachnoid block (SAB) is the first choice anesthesia in lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries. It produces a varying degree of sensory analgesia, motor blockade, and sympathetic blockade depending on the dose, concentration, and volume of the local anesthetic given. This study was undertaken to assess the degree of sensory and motor block with 150 μg of oral versus intramuscular clonidine as an adjuvant to bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia. Aims and Objective: To compare the efficacy of oral versus intramuscular clonidine as an adjuvant to bupivacaine for the prolongation of sensory and motor block in patients undergoing lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries under SAB. Materials and Methods: After institutional ethical clearance, 90 patients were randomized into three groups scheduled for lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries under spinal anesthesia. • Group O: Bupivacaine 0.5% (heavy) 3.0 mL and oral clonidine 150 μg 1 h before spinal anesthesia. • Group I: Bupivacaine 0.5% (heavy) 3.0 mL and intramuscular clonidine 150 μg 1 h before spinal anesthesia. • Group C: Control group – 3 mL bupivacaine 0.5% (heavy) alone. Result: The onset of sensory block in Group O was 4.9 ± 0.52 min, whereas in Group I, it was 4.6 ± 0.42 min than Group C (5.1 ± 0.60). Onset of motor block was also significantly lower in Group O and Group I (3.9 ± 0.53 and 3.7 ± 0.42 min) than in Group C (4.4 ± 0.6 min) which was a control group. There was also a significant difference in the duration of the sensory block between Group O (206.4 ± 9.2 min), Group I (219 ± 8.6 min), and Group C (184.3 ± 9.1 min). The duration of motor block was significantly higher in Group O (183.6 ± 8.2 min) and Group I (197.8 ± 9.6 min) when compared to Group C (162.8 ± 8.9 min). The timing of rescue analgesia in Group O was 222.4 ± 11.7 min, whereas in Group I, it was 243.46 ± 10.9. Conclusion: On the basis of finding of our study, we conclude that the use of clonidine as a premedication at a dose of 150 μg significantly increased the duration of sensory block, motor block, and duration of analgesia and shortened the time of onset of sensory and motor blockade.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed264    
    Printed16    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded22    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal