1998PubMedOpen access

Comparative study of intrathecal pethidine versus lignocaine as an anaesthetic and a postoperative analgesic for perianal surgery.

L S Chaudhari, D G Kane, B Shivkumar, SK Kamath

Open full text 15 citations

Abstract

100 patients with ASA risk I & II and undergoing perianal surgery were studied for anaesthetic effects and postoperative analgesia following either intrathecal pethidine or lignocaine. Saddle block was performed either with intrathecal pethidine 5% (50 mg/ml) 0.5 mg/kg or 1 ml of 5% lignocaine. Sensory and motor block postoperative analgesia, need for additional analgesia were studied. The onset of sensory and motor blockade with lignocaine was faster than pethidine. However the sensory and motor blockade lasted longer with pethidine. The duration of postoperative analgesia was 15.39 +/- 5.14 hours as against duration of postoperative analgesia with lignocaine which was 1.3 +/- 0.53 hours. Only 10% of patients in the pethidine group required intramuscular analgesic supplementation whereas 30% of patients in the lignocaine group required intramuscular analgesic supplementation.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

100 patients with ASA risk I & II and undergoing perianal surgery were studied for anaesthetic effects and postoperative analgesia following either intrathecal pethidine or lignocaine. Saddle block was performed either with intrathecal pethidine 5% (50 mg/ml) 0.5 mg/kg or 1 ml of 5% lignocaine. Sensory and motor block postoperative analgesia, need for additional analgesia were studied. The onset of sensory and motor blockade with lignocaine was faster than pethidine. However the sensory and motor blockade lasted longer with pethidine. The duration of postoperative analgesia was 15.39 +/- 5.14 hours as against duration of postoperative analgesia with lignocaine which was 1.3 +/- 0.53 hours. Only 10% of patients in the pethidine group required intramuscular analgesic supplementation whereas 30% of patients in the lignocaine group required intramuscular analgesic supplementation.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 15 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

100 patients with ASA risk I & II and undergoing perianal surgery were studied for anaesthetic effects and postoperative analgesia following either intrathecal pethidine or lignocaine. Saddle block was performed either with intrathecal pethidine 5% (50 mg/ml) 0.5 mg/kg or 1 ml of 5% lignocaine. Sensory and motor block postoperative analgesia, need for additional analgesia were studied. The onset of sensory and motor blockade with lignocaine was faster than pethidine. However the sensory and motor blockade lasted longer with pethidine. The duration of postoperative analgesia was 15.39 +/- 5.14 hours as against duration of postoperative analgesia with lignocaine which was 1.3 +/- 0.53 hours. Only 10% of patients in the pethidine group required intramuscular analgesic supplementation whereas 30% of patients in the lignocaine group required intramuscular analgesic supplementation.

Key concepts: Pethidine, Medicine, Anesthesia, Analgesic, Surgery, Intrathecal

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparative study of intrathecal pethidine versus lignocaine as an anaesthetic and a postoperative analgesic for perianal surgery. — Research Paper | ScholarLens