Experience of using local anesthetic combinations
Keywords:regional blockade, local anesthetic combinations
Background. The general toxic effects of local anesthetics on vital organs are the most severe side effects of regional blockades. The purpose was to study the effectiveness and safety of combined solutions of local anesthetics in the brachial plexus block. Materials and methods. Forty-nine patients were divided into 2 study groups. The first group (controls) consisted of 24 individuals who received a solution of 0.5% bupivacaine 36 ml (180 mg) with adrenaline 1 : 200,000 as an adjuvant to block the brachial plexus. The second group (main) consisted of 25 patients, who were treated with a mixture of 2% lidocaine 12 ml (240 mg) and 0.5% bupivacaine 12 ml (60 mg) diluted with a solution of 0.9% NaCl 12 ml and adrenaline 1 : 200,000 as an adjuvant. Results. In the first group (bupivacaine), the onset time of sensory block averaged 11.3 ± 4.3 minutes, motor block — 21.0 ± 7.8 minutes. The motor block duration was 894 ± 237 minutes. In the second group (mixture), the onset time of sensory block averaged 8.0 ± 3.6 minutes, motor block — 14.0 ± 6.2 minutes, which was significantly less than in the first group. The duration of the motor block was 539 ± 186 minutes. The longest postoperative analgesia was registered in the bupivacaine group — 984 ± 263 minutes. The duration of postoperative analgesia in the main group was slightly shorter — 612 ± 210 minutes. Conclusions. The proposed combination of local anesthetics bupivacaine and lidocaine allows reducing the bupivacaine dose by three times, which decreases the toxic complications of conduction anesthesia. The clinical use of the proposed drug combination reduces the duration of the latent period and provides long-term postoperative analgesia.
Borgeat A., Ekatodramis G., Kalberer F., Benz C. Acute and nonacute complications associated with interscalene block and shoulder surgery: A prospective study. Anesthesiology 2001; 95: 875–880.
Fesenko VS. Efficiency and security of three accesses for the humeral plexus blockade. Pain, anesthesia and intensive care. 2009. № 4: 7–14. (In Ukrainian).
Kuchin YL, Pilipenko MM, Nalapko YI, Craig R. Local anesthetics: a modern view. Pain Medicine / Pain Medicine, 2016. №3 (3): 7–18 . (In Ukrainian).
Fesenko VS. Local anesthetics intoxication: old danger, modern myths, new drugs, and “silver bullet ”// Pain, anesthesia and intensive care. 2009. - № 3: 2–10. (in Russian).
Groban L., Deal D. D., Vernon J. C., James R. L., Butterworth J. Cardiacresuscitation after incremental overdosage with lidocaine, bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, and ropivacaine in anesthetized dogs. Anesth Analg 2001; 92: 37–43.
Tran de QH, Dugani S, Correa JA, et al. Minimum effective volume of lidocaine for ultrasound-guided supraclavicular block. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2011; 36: 466–469.
Song JG, Jeon DG, Kang BJ, Park KK. Minimum effective volume of mepivacaine for ultrasound-guided supraclavicular block. Korean J Anesthesiol 2013; 65: 37–41.
Taha AM, Abd-Elmaksoud AM. Lidocaine use in ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block: what is the minimum effective anesthetic concentration (MEAC90)? Br J Anaesth 2013; 110: 1040–1044.
Litz R. J., Popp M., Stehr S. N., Koch T. Successful resuscitation of a patient with ropivacaine-induced asystole after axillary plexus block using lipid infusion. - Anesthesia 2006; 61: 800–1.
Nader A, Kendall MC, De Oliveira GS Jr, et al. A dose-ranging study of 0.5% bupivacaine or ropivacaine on the success and duration of the ultrasoundguided, nerve-stimulator-assisted sciatic nerve block: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2013; 38: 492–502.
Knudsen K, Beckman Suurkula M, Blomberg S, et al. Central nervous and cardiovascular effects of i.v. infusions of ropivacaine, bupivacaine and placebo in volunteers. Br J Anaesth 1997; 78: 507–514.
Schoenmakers KP, Vree TB, Jack NT, et al. Pharmacokinetics of 450 mg ropivacaine with and without epinephrine for combined femoral and sciatic nerve block in lower extremity surgery. A pilot study. No. J Clin Pharmacol 2013; 75: 1321–1327.
Basenko IL, Chuev PN, Marukhnyak LI, Budnyuk AA. Regional anesthesia of the upper extremities. – Odessa, 2009: 260. ((in Russian).
Gadsden J, Hadzic A, Gandhi K, et al. The effect of mixing 1.5% mepivacaine and 0.5% bupivacaine on duration of analgesia and latency of block onset inultrasound-guided interscalene block. Anesth Analg 2011; 112: 471–476.
Cuvillon P, Nouvellon E, Ripart J, et al. A comparison of the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of bupivacaine, ropivacaine (with epinephrine) and their equal volumemixtureswith lidocaine used for femoral and sciatic nerve blocks: a double-blind randomized study. Anesth Anal 2009; 108: 641–649.
Laur JJ, Bayman EO, Flodes PJ, Roseguist RW. Triple-blind randomized clinical trial of time until sensory change using 1.5% mepivacaine with epinephrine, 0.5% bupivacaine, or an equal mixture of both for infraclavicular block. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2012; 37: 28–33.
Mather LE, Tucker GT, MurphyTM et al. Cardiovascular and subjective central nervous system effects of long-acting local anesthetics in man. Anaesth Intensive Care 1979; 7: 215–221.
de Jong RH, Bonin JD. Mixtures of local anesthetics are no more toxic than the parent drugs. Anesthesiology 1981; 54: 177–181.
Datsyuk OI, Kozlovska IY, Kozlovsky YK and others. Diagnosis and prevention of perioperative hypothermia. // Pain. Anesthesia and intensive care. 2016. № 4 (77): 42-47. (In Ukrainian).
Oka S, Shimamoto C, Kyoda Analog et al. Comparison of lidocaine with and without bupivacaine for local dental anesthesia. Anesth Prog. 1997; 44: 83–86.
Seow LT, Lips FJ, Cousins MJ et al. Lidocaine and bupivacaine mixtures for epidural blockade. Anesthesiology 1982; 56: 177–183.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Our edition uses the copyright terms of Creative Commons for open access journals.
Authors, who are published in this journal, agree with the following terms:
- The authors retain rights for authorship of their article and grant to the edition the right of first publication of the article on a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which allows others to freely distribute the published article, with the obligatory reference to the authors of original works and original publication in this journal.
- Directing the article for the publication to the editorial board (publisher), the author agrees with transmitting of rights for the protection and using the article, including parts of the article, which are protected by the copyrights, such as the author’s photo, pictures, charts, tables, etc., including the reproduction in the media and the Internet; for distributing; for the translation of the manuscript in all languages; for export and import of the publications copies of the writers’ article to spread, bringing to the general information.
- The rights mentioned above authors transfer to the edition (publisher) for the unlimited period of validity and on the territory of all countries of the world.
- The authors guarantee that they have exclusive rights for using of the article, which they have sent to the edition (publisher). The edition (the publisher) is not responsible for the violation of given guarantees by the authors to the third parties.
- The authors have the right to conclude separate supplement agreements that relate to non-exclusive distribution of their article in the form in which it had been published in the journal (for example, to upload the work to the online storage of the journal or publish it as part of a monograph), provided that the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal is included.
- The policy of the journal permits and encourages the publication of the article in the Internet (in institutional repository or on a personal website) by the authors, because it contributes to productive scientific discussion and a positive effect on efficiency and dynamics of the citation of the article.
- The rights to the article are deemed transferred by the authors to the edition (the publisher) since the moment of the publication of the article in the printed or electronic version of journal.