Is unilateral spinal anesthesia superior to bilateral spinal anesthesia in unilateral inguinal regional surgery?

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorCicekci F.
dc.contributor.authorYilmaz H.
dc.contributor.authorBalasar M.
dc.contributor.authorSahin M.
dc.contributor.authorKara F.
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-26T18:59:10Z
dc.date.available2020-03-26T18:59:10Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.departmentSelçuk Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: Unilateral spinal anesthesia is performed to provide restriction of sensory and motor block.Objective: The aim of this study was to compare unilateral and bilateral spinal anesthesia, with regard to limiting the nerve block exclusively to the area of surgery. Methods: This was a prospective, randomised, double-blind study, conducted in 40 consecutive outpatients scheduled for unilateral inguinal regional surgery. Patients in both groups received 0.5 % hyperbaric bupivacaine 15 mg + morphine 0.1 mg. Patients in the unilateral group (Group U) were placed in the lateral decubitus position for 10 minutes (min) on their side to be operated, while patients in the bilateral group (Group B) were placed in the supine position. The pin-prick test was used to assess the times to reach L1, T12 and T10 sensory blocks and the times to reach motor block. In addition, the sensory and motor block recovery times were recorded using a modified Bromage scale. Furthermore, the duration of the operation and the times to first analgesic requirement were noted. Results: There were significant differences between Group U and Group B in the times to reach L1, T12 and T10 dermatome levels of sensory block, and the times to reach motor block using the modified Bromage scale on three levels. However, there was no difference in the time to ambulation, the time to complete sensory regression and the time to first analgesic requirement. Conclusion: The time to reach sensory and motor blocks for unilateral spinal anesthesia could provide an advantage over bilateral spinal anesthesia in inguinal region operations. © 2014, American University of Beirut. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.identifier.endpage596en_US
dc.identifier.issn0544-0440en_US
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.pmid25669003en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ4en_US
dc.identifier.startpage591en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12395/31433
dc.identifier.volume22en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherAmerican University of Beiruten_US
dc.relation.ispartofMiddle East Journal of Anesthesiologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.selcuk20240510_oaigen_US
dc.subjectBilateral spinal anesthesiaen_US
dc.subjectInguinal surgeryen_US
dc.subjectUnilateral spinal anesthesiaen_US
dc.titleIs unilateral spinal anesthesia superior to bilateral spinal anesthesia in unilateral inguinal regional surgery?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu