Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus & ISI's SCI  
Users online: 5047  
Home | Subscribe | Feedback | Login 
About Latest Articles Back-Issues Article Submission Resources Sections Etcetera Contact
 
  NAVIGATE Here 
 ::   Next article
 ::   Previous article
 ::   Table of Contents

 RESOURCE Links
 ::   Similar in PUBMED
 ::  Search Pubmed for
 ::  Search in Google Scholar for
 ::Related articles
 ::   Citation Manager
 ::   Access Statistics
 ::   Reader Comments
 ::   Email Alert *
 ::   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed6368    
    Printed153    
    Emailed9    
    PDF Downloaded141    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal


 

 PAPERS
Year : 1996  |  Volume : 42  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 43-5

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


Department of Anaesthesiology, KEM Hospital & Seth GS Medical College, Parel, Mumbai.

Correspondence Address:
L S Chaudhari
Department of Anaesthesiology, KEM Hospital & Seth GS Medical College, Parel, Mumbai.

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 0009715298

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

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.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article

Online since 12th February '04
2004 - Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
Official Publication of the Staff Society of the Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, India
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow