CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Davis, S.
Right arrow Articles by James, M. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Davis, S.
Right arrow Articles by James, M. F.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 39, 551-554, Copyright © 1992 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

ARTICLES

A comparison of spinal and epidural anaesthesia for hip arthroplasty

S Davis, R Erskine and MF James
Department of Anaesthesia, Groote Schuur Hospital, Observatory, Republic of South Africa.

Spinal and epidural anaesthesia were compared in 65 patients undergoing hip arthroplasty, with regard to the degree of sensory and motor blockade, cardiovascular effects, operating conditions, the dose of propofol required to produce satisfactory hypnosis, and complications. Epidural anaesthesia was successful in 30 patients using an initial dose of 15 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine, and spinal anaesthesia in 32 patients, using 4 ml 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine. The two techniques were similar with regard to the level of sensory blockade (T8), degree of hypotension and perioperative haemorrhage. Differences occurred in the degree of motor blockade (mean Bromage score of 1 in the spinal group vs 3.86 in the epidural group) (P less than 0.05), time to achieve maximal cephalad spread (13 min in the spinal group vs 21 min in the epidural group) (P less than 0.05) and the dose of propofol required to produce adequate hypnosis (1.95 mg.kg-1.hr-1 in the spinal group vs 2.89 mg.kg-1.hr-1 in the epidural group) (P less than 0.05). Only seven patients required urethral catheterization in this spinal group compared with 14 in the epidural group (P less than 0.05). Spinal anaesthesia also proved advantageous by providing better operating conditions for the surgeon, with a lower incidence of patient movement.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1992 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.