A randomised controlled trial comparing the effect of adjuvant intrathecal 2 mg midazolam to 20 micrograms fentanyl on postoperative pain for patients undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery under spinal anaesthesia.

Background: Intrathecal adjuvants are added to local anaesthetics to improve the quality of neuraxial blockade and prolong the duration of analgesia during spinal anaesthesia. Used intrathecally, fentanyl improves the quality of spinal blockade as compared to plain bupivacaine and confers a short duration of post-operative analgesia. Intrathecal midazolam as an adjuvant has been used and shown to improve the quality of spinal anaesthesia and prolong the duration of post-operative analgesia. No studies have been done comparing intrathecal fentanyl with bupivacaine and intrathecal 2 mg midazolam with bupivacaine. Objective: To compare the effect of intrathecal 2 mg midazolam to intrathecal 20 micrograms fentanyl when added to 2.6 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine, on post-operative pain, in patients undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery under spinal anaesthesia. Methods: A total of 40 patients undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery under spinal anaesthesia were randomized to two groups. Group 1: 2.6mls 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 0.4mls (20micrograms) fentanyl Group 2: 2.6mls of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 0.4mls (2mg) midazolam Results: The duration of effective analgesia was longer in the midazolam group (384.05 minutes) as compared to the fentanyl group (342.6 minutes). There was no significant difference (P 0.4047). The time to onset was significantly longer in midazolam group 17.1 minutes as compared to the fentanyl group 13.2 minutes (P 0.023). The visual analogue score at rescue was significantly lower in the midazolam group (5.55) as compared to the fentanyl group 6.35 (P - 0.043). Conclusion: On the basis of the results of this study, there was no significant difference in the duration of effective analgesia between adjuvant intrathecal 2 mg midazolam as compared to intrathecal 20 micrograms fentanyl for patients undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery.

A randomised controlled trial comparing weight adjusted dose versus fixed dose prophylactic phenylephrine infusion on maintaining systolic blood pressure during caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia.

Background: Spinal anaesthesia is the standard of care for elective caesarean delivery. It has advantages over general anaesthesia. However the sympathetic blockade induced by spinal anaesthesia results in an 80 percent incidence of hypotension without prophylactic management. Current evidence supports co-loading with intravenous fluids in conjunction with the use of vasopressors as the most effective way to prevent and treat the hypotension. Phenylephrine is the accepted vasopressor of choice in the parturient. A prophylactic phenylephrine infusion combined with a fluid co-load is proven to be an effective and safe method of maintaining maternal hemodynamic stability. While most published studies have assessed the effectiveness of a prophylactic phenylephrine fixed dose infusion, few studies have assessed the effect of a prophylactic phenylephrine weight adjusted dose infusion on maintaining maternal hemodynamic stability following spinal anesthesia for a cesarean delivery. Objective: To compare the incidence of hypotension between women undergoing elective caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia, receiving prophylactic phenylephrine infusion at a fixed dose of 37.5 micrograms per minute versus a weight adjusted dose of 0.5 micrograms per kilogram per minute. Methods: One hundred and eight patients scheduled for non-urgent caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia were randomized into 2 groups; control group and intervention group using a computer generated table of numbers. Control group; Received prophylactic phenylephrine fixed dose infusion at 37.5 micrograms per minute. Intervention group; Received prophylactic phenylephrine weight adjusted dose infusion at 0.5 micrograms per kilogram per minute Results: The two groups had similar baseline characteristics in terms of ; Age, sex, weight and height. There was a 35.2% incidence of hypotension in the fixed dose group and an 18.6% incidence of hypotension in the weight adjusted dose group. This difference was found to be of borderline statistical significance p-value 0.05, and the difference in the incidence rates between the two groups was found to be statistically significant p= 0.03. The difference in the incidence of reactive hypertension and bradycardia between the two groups was not statistically significant: p-value of 0.19 for reactive hypertension and p-value of 0.42 for the incidence of bradycardia. There was also no statistically significant difference in the use of phenylephrine boluses, use of atropine, intravenous fluid used and the number of times the infusion was stopped. Conclusion: Among this population, the incidence of hypotension was significantly less in the weight adjusted dose group than in the fixed dose group. There was no difference in the number of physician interventions required to keep the blood pressure within 20% of baseline, and no difference in the proportion of reactive hypertension or bradycardia between the two groups. Administering prophylactic phenylephrine infusion at a weight adjusted dose of 0.5 micrograms per kilogram per minute results in a lower incidence of hypotension compared to its administration at a fixed dose of 37.5 micrograms per minute.

Orthopaedic anaesthesia for upper extremity procedures in a Nigerian hospital

Background General anaesthesia and regional anaesthesia have been used successfully for upper extremity orthopaedic procedures. Despite the advantages of regional anaesthesia, there is low utilisation in Nigeria. In this study, we assessed the types of anaesthesia employed for upper extremity surgeries in our centre. Methods After obtaining approval from the institutional ethics committee, all the patients who had upper extremity surgeries from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2012 were included in this review. Both prospective and retrospective data were gathered. The choice of anaesthesia was at the discretion of the attending anaesthetist. Results A total of 226 patients with a male-to-female ratio of 1.6:1 and median age of 35.0 (range 2 – 89) years, had orthopaedic upper extremity procedures during the study period. Sixty-three cases (27.9%) had general anaesthesia, 5 (2.2%) combined regional and general anaesthesia while 158 (69.9%) had regional blocks. The regional blocks comprised 145 (89%) different approaches to the brachial plexus and 18 (11%) local anaesthetic infiltrations. The arm was the site mostly operated upon; while supraclavicular and axillary brachial plexus blocks were performed in equal amounts. In 14 (6.2%) patients, brachial plexus blocks were performed with spinal anaesthesia because of concomitant iliac crest bone grafts. While the duration of surgery did not differ significantly, regional anaesthesia provided a significantly longer duration of anaesthesia than general anaesthesia (251 ± 70.8 min versus 141.3 ± 65.5 min; p = 0.0000001). Conclusion There is a high use of regional anaesthesia for upper extremity orthopaedic surgeries in our centre, which is a positive development in a resource limited setting.

Experience of collaboration between a Dutch surgical team in a Ghanaian Orthopaedic Teaching Hospital.

Background: Surgery is an indivisible, indispensable part of healthcare. In Africa, surgery may be thought of as the neglected stepchild of global public health. We describe our experience over a 3-year period of intensive collaboration between specialized teams from a Dutch hospital and local teams of an orthopaedic hospital in Effiduase-Koforidua, Ghana. Intervention: During 2010-2012, medical teams from our hospital were deployed to St. Joseph’s Hospital. These teams were completely self-supporting. They were encouraged to work together with the local-staff. Apart from clinical work, effort was also spent on education/ teaching operation techniques/ regional anaesthesia techniques/ scrubbing techniques/ and principles around sterility. Results: Knowledge and quality of care has improved. Nevertheless, the overall level of quality of care still lags behind compared to what we see in the Western world. This is mainly due to financial constraints; restricting the capacity to purchase good equipment, maintaining it, and providing regular education. Conclusion: The relief provided by institutions like Care-to-Move is very valuable and essential to improve the level of healthcare. The hospital has evolved to such a high level that general European teams have become redundant. Focused and dedicated teams should be the next step of support within the nearby future.