Publication:
Unilateral Spinal Anesthesia with Hyperbaric Bupivacaine Versus Hyperbaric Articaine in Out-Patient Knee Surgery

dc.authorscopusid6701372559
dc.authorscopusid56216831400
dc.authorscopusid6701480599
dc.authorscopusid7006739343
dc.authorscopusid55930855600
dc.authorscopusid6701582141
dc.contributor.authorSarıhasan, B.
dc.contributor.authorBariş, S.
dc.contributor.authorKarakaya, D.
dc.contributor.authorTür, A.
dc.contributor.authorGüldogus, F.
dc.contributor.authorGülman, B.
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T09:15:25Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T09:15:25Z
dc.date.issued2000
dc.departmentOndokuz Mayıs Üniversitesien_US
dc.department-temp[Sarıhasan] Binnur, Tip Fakultesi, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Bariş] Sibel, Tip Fakultesi, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Karakaya] Deniz, Tip Fakultesi, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Tür] Ayla Hediye, Tip Fakultesi, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Güldogus] Fuat, Tip Fakultesi, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Gülman] Birol, Tip Fakultesi, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkeyen_US
dc.description.abstractHemodynamic alterations due to sympathetic blockade during spinal anesthesia should be minimized. Restriction of sympathetic blockade during unilateral spinal anesthesia causes minimal hemodynamic alterations. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of hyperbaric bupivacaine and hyperbaric articaine on hemodynamic parameters and the level of sensory blockade for unilateral spinal anesthesia in outpatient knee arthroscopy. Twenty-seven patients undergoing elective lower extremity arthroscopy were included in this study. After spinal anesthesia in the lateral decubitus position. 15 patients in the bupivacaine group (Group B) were given 2 ml 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine and 12 patients in the articaine group (Group A) were given 1 ml 0.5% hyperbaric articaine. After the lateral position was maintained for 10 min. the final segmental blockade level and the degree of motor blockade on both the operated and unoperated sides were evaluated. Hemodynamic alterations and complications were also noted. There was no statistical difference between the groups with regards to hemodynamics, maximum sensorial blockade level, complications and number of patients in whom third degree motor blockade was achieved. However, two patients in the articaine group required general anesthesia due to inadequate surgical analgesia. In conclusion, unilateral spinal anesthesia could not be achieved with both of these techniques. However, both of these techniques can be safely used in outpatient arthroscopy for hemodynamic stability.en_US
dc.identifier.endpage257en_US
dc.identifier.issn1300-2996
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-0034490153
dc.identifier.startpage252en_US
dc.identifier.volume17en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofOndokuz Mayis Universitesi Tip Dergisien_US
dc.relation.journalOndokuz Mayis Universitesi Tip Dergisien_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectAnesthesiaen_US
dc.subjectArticaineen_US
dc.subjectBupivacaineen_US
dc.subjectKnee Arthroscopyen_US
dc.subjectLocal Anestheticsen_US
dc.subjectOutpatienten_US
dc.subjectSpinalen_US
dc.subjectUnilateralen_US
dc.titleUnilateral Spinal Anesthesia with Hyperbaric Bupivacaine Versus Hyperbaric Articaine in Out-Patient Knee Surgeryen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files