Iatrogenic bacterial meningitis (IBM) is a rare but serious complication of neuraxial procedures, such as spinal and epidural anesthesia or lumbar puncture. We report a case of a 46-year-old female who presented to the emergency department with bacterial meningitis after spinal anesthesia. We reviewthe existing literature outlining the pathogenesis, vector hypothesis, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention as they relate to IBM. We highlight the role of the emergency physician in the rapid diagnosis of this disease, and underscore the need for sterile technique when performing lumbar punctures.

Background and objective: Epidural analgesia with bupivacaine plus either sufentanil or fentanyl is widely used during labour, but it is not clear which opioid is to be preferred. The study compared these opioids at equianalgesic doses in terms of analgesia, onset time and side-effects.

Methods: Ninety females in active labour were entered into the randomized, double-blind trial. A test dose of bupivacaine was given into the epidural space. Parturients in Group S received sufentanil 8 mL as a bolus dose, followed by an infusion at a rate of 5 mL h−1 of a mixture containing sufentanil 1 µg mL−1 and bupivacaine 1 mg mL−1. Patients in Group F received fentanyl 8 mL as a bolus, followed by an infusion at 5 mL h−1 of a solution containing fentanyl 3.5 µg mL−1 and bupivacaine 1 mg mL−1. Additional boluses of 5 mL were of the relevant solution were given if necessary.

Results: In a ratio of 1.0 : 3.5 (sufentanil 1 µg versus fentanyl 3.5 µg), both groups reported the same analgesia with the same onset time. The onset time to obtain 50% of the initial visual analogue score was 10 and 11 min for Groups S and F, respectively. Mean visual analogue scores in Groups S and F respectively declined from 77 and 82 before epidural blockade, to 29 and 27 during the first stage of labour, and to 69 and 59 respectively during the second stage. Overall satisfaction among parturients was high (98 and 96%), particularly during the first stage (98 and 98%), and also to a large degree during the second stage of labour (74 and 79%). Furthermore, only a few extra bolus doses were required (mean 0.9 and 1.2, Groups S and F, respectively). All the females could stand on their own, and almost all (81% Group S; 79% Group F) could walk 20 m without help. There were no serious adverse effects. Moderate side-effects occurred equally often with the possible exception of less nausea and vomiting in the fentanyl group.

Conclusions: Epidural analgesia for ambulatory parturients with bupivacaine plus either sufentanil or fentanyl (ratio 1.0 : 3.5) provides good analgesia with a low frequency of modest side-effects. No clinical differences were found between the opioids.

Background and objective: The effects of altering the concentration of a local anaesthetic on the development of epidural anaesthesia in pregnant females are unclear. We compared the anaesthetic effects of a constant dose of two different concentrations of epidural lidocaine for Caesarean section.

Methods: After Institutional Review Board approval and informed consent, patients undergoing elective Caesarean section were randomized to receive either lidocaine 1% 30 mL (+epinephrine 5 μg mL−1) or lidocaine 2% 15 mL (+epinephrine 5 μg mL−1) (n = 20 each) for epidural anaesthesia at the L1-L2 interspace. The spread of the sensory block to pinprick and the degree of motor block (modified Bromage scale) were measured at 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 min after injection.

Results: No significant differences in the progression of analgesia and motor block were observed at any time between 1 and 2% lidocaine. The maximum cephalad spread was observed 30 min after injection; the median was at T4 (range T3–T5) and at T4 (range T3–T6) for lidocaine 1 and 2%, respectively.

Conclusions: The same doses but different volumes of lidocaine 1 and 2% produced comparable anaesthetic effects in pregnant females. The effects of epidural anaesthesia depend primarily on the total dose of the local anaesthetic.

Severe complications such as spinal epidural haematoma and an array of adverse neurological events leading to temporary or permanent disability have been ascribed to central neuraxial blocks. Infections (meningitis, abscesses), chemical injuries and very rarely cerebral ischaemia or haemorrhage, or both, have also been ascribed directly or indirectly to spinal and/or epidural anaesthesia. Some case reports, and very few retrospective studies, have focused their attention on the fact that central nerve blocks can cause, albeit rarely, permanent damage to the spinal cord or nerve roots, or both. The cause of this damage in many cases remains unclear. The attention of investigators and practitioners is focused both on understanding the causative mechanisms of such accidents and in identifying 'alarm events' that can arise during the administration of a central block, if any. We reviewed the international literature for the neurological complications of central neuraxial blocks to identify some events that, if they occurred during the block procedure, could be perceived as dangerous.

Background and objective: We assessed the analgesic efficacy of postoperative epidural infusions of ropivacaine 0.1 and 0.2% combined with sufentanil 1 μg mL−1 in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study.

Methods: Twenty-two ASA I—III patients undergoing elective total-knee replacement were included. Lumbar epidural blockade using ropivacaine 0.75% was combined with either propofol sedation or general anaesthesia for surgery. After surgery, the epidural infusion was commenced. Eleven patients in each group received either an epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% with 1 μg mL−1 sufentanil (Group 1) or ropivacaine 0.2% with 1 μg mL−1 sufentanil (Group 2) at a rate of 5–9 mL h−1. All patients had access to intravenous pirinatrimide (piritramide) via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device.

Results: Motor block was negligible for the study duration in both groups. There was no significant difference with the 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, with the consumption of rescue analgesia or with patient satisfaction. Patients in Group 1 experienced significantly less nausea (P < 0.05) than those in Group 2. Both treatment regimens provided effective postoperative analgesia with only a minimal use of supplemental opioid PCA.

Conclusions: We recommend the use of ropivacaine 0.1% with 1 μg mL−1 sufentanil for postoperative analgesia after total knee replacement as it provides efficient pain relief with no motor block of the lower limbs. In addition, compared with 0.2% ropivacaine with sufentanil, the mixture reduces local anaesthetic consumption without compromise in patient satisfaction or VAS scores. Patients even experience less nausea.

Background and objective: The epidural and subarachnoid spaces should be identified at the first attempt, since multiple punctures increase the risk of postdural puncture headache, epidural haematoma and neural trauma. The study aimed to describe the predictors of successful neuraxial blocks at the first attempt.

Methods: After institutional Review Board approval, 1481 patients undergoing spinal or epidural anaesthesia were prospectively enrolled. For each block we recorded: gender, age, height, weight, body habitus, anatomical landmarks (palpability of the spinous processes), spinal anatomy, patient positioning, premedication, needle type and gauge, approach, spinal level of the block, and the provider’s level of experience. Retrieval of cerebrospinal fluid or loss of resistance to saline or air identified the subarachnoid and epidural spaces, respectively. The outcome variable was the first attempt success or failure (whether or not the needle was correctly located with one skin puncture and produced adequate surgical anaesthesia). Backward stepwise logistic regression tested its association with the other variables.

Results: The first-attempt rate of success was 61.51%. Independent predictors (Odds ratio, 95% confidence limits) were the quality of anatomical landmarks (1.92 (1.57; 2.35)), the provider’s level of experience (1.24 (1.15; 1.33)) and the adequacy of patient positioning (3.84 (2.84; 5.19)).

Conclusions: The successful location of the subarachnoid or the epidural space at the first attempt is influenced by the quality of patients’ anatomical landmarks, the adequacy of patient positioning and the provider’s level of experience.

Patients receiving anticoagulants offer a challenge to anaesthesiologists. The issue of spinal haematoma following central neuraxial block in such patients is a contentious issue. Although rare, with an estimated incidence of <1 : 150 000 for epidural blocks and 1 : 220 000 for spinal anaesthetics in patients with normal coagulation status, this is an emergency situation with a potentially grave prognosis. The review presents cases of spinal haematomata that have occurred in the last 5 years, both spontaneously and after central neuraxial blockade. Of the 60 cases reported in the literature, 33% occurred following central neuraxial block and, of these, 55% were associated with concomitant use of anticoagulants. The pharmacology of the newer and older anticoagulants is also described. The variety of risk factors and diverse recommendations that have been described in these patients are reviewed.

Background and objective: Epidural analgesia is the most effective method for pain relief during labour. The aim was to elucidate the efficacy of ropivacaine 0.05% and bupivacaine 0.05%, which were both combined with fentanyl 0.00015% to provide analgesia in labour.

Methods: Forty nulliparous females were enrolled into the study. After insertion of an epidural catheter, patients were randomly assigned into two groups. Once the os uteri had dilated to 4–5 cm, a bolus of bupivacaine 0.125% 10 mL + fentanyl 50 μg (1 mL) in Group 1 patients, and ropivacaine 0.125% 10 mL + fentanyl 50 μg (1 mL) in Group 2 patients was administered via the epidural catheter. Then, patient-controlled epidural analgesia was started with a basal infusion of bupivacaine 0.05% 10 mL h−1 + fentanyl 0.00015% 1.5 μg mL−1 in Group 1, and ropivacaine 0.05% + fentanyl 1.5 μg mL−1 in Group 2. When needed, a 10 mL bolus infusion could be given and the lockout time was 20 min. Maternal and fetal haemodynamic variables were monitored before induction and subsequently at 5 min intervals. Using a visual analogue scale assessed the degree of pain.

Results: Maternal haemodynamic variables and Apgar scores were not different between the two groups. The second stage of the labour was shorter in Group 2 (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in patients’ assessment of motor block or mode of delivery between groups.

Conclusions: An epidural infusion (10 mL h−1) of bupivacaine 0.05% or ropivacaine 0.05% together with fentanyl 1.5 μg mL−1 provided good and safe analgesia during labour.

Background and objective: Recent clinical studies comparing ropivacaine 0.25% with bupivacaine 0.25% reported not only comparable analgesia, but also comparable motor block for epidural analgesia during labour. An opioid can be combined with local anaesthetic to reduce the incidence of side-effects and to improve analgesia for the relief of labour pain. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects of epidural bupivacaine 0.2% compared with ropivacaine 0.2% combined with fentanyl for the initiation and maintenance of analgesia during labour and delivery.

Methods: Sixty labouring nulliparous women were randomly allocated to receive either bupivacaine 0.2% with fentanyl 2 μg mL−1 (B/F), or ropivacaine 0.2% with fentanyl 2 μg mL−1 (R/F). For the initiation of epidural analgesia, 8 mL of the study solution was administered. Supplemental analgesia was obtained with 4 mL of the study solution according to parturients’ needs when their pain was ≥4 on a visual analogue scale. Analgesia, hourly local anaesthetic use, motor block, patient satisfaction and side-effects between groups were evaluated during labour and at delivery.

Results: Sixty patients were enrolled and 53 completed the study. No differences in verbal pain scores, hourly local anaesthetic use or patient satisfaction between groups were observed. However, motor block was observed in 10 patients in the B/F group whereas only two patients had motor block in the R/F group (P < 0.05). The incidence of instrumental delivery was also higher in the B/F group than in the R/F group (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: The results suggest that epidural bupivacaine 0.2% and ropivacaine 0.2% combined with fentanyl produced equivalent analgesia for pain relief during labour and delivery. It is concluded that ropivacaine 0.2% combined with fentanyl 2 μg mL−1 provided effective analgesia with significantly less motor block and need for an instrumental delivery than a bupivacaine/fentanyl combination at the same concentrations during labour and delivery.

Background and objective: Drug mixtures containing sufentanil may be unstable owing to absorption into the drug reservoirs of patient-controlled epidural analgesia systems that contain polyvinylchloride. The stability of sufentanil in a mixture of ropivacaine 0.2% in a 750 mL reservoir was therefore investigated.

Methods: During simulated epidural infusions of 5 mL h−1 at 25°C, sufentanil concentrations were measured for 96 h. Samples were taken from the reservoir and from the end of the epidural catheter under the following conditions: into glass or polyvinylchloride reservoirs containing ropivacaine 0.2% with sufentanil 1, 0.75 or 0.5 μg mL−1; and into polyvinylchloride reservoirs with ropivacaine 0.2% and sufentanil 1 μg mL−1 which were stored for 4 weeks at 8°C.

Results: The different solutions remained stable over the observation period of 96h. Using the same solutions, independent samples’ ANOVA showed no difference in the sufentanil concentrations between the glass and polyvinylchloride reservoirs, or between the polyvinylchloride reservoirs when stored for 4 weeks. Correlations between the concentrations at the different measurement times were extremely high for the reservoir (rmin = 0.98, rmax = 1.00) and the catheter end (rmin = 0.86, rmax = 1.00).

Conclusions: Sufentanil citrate at 0.5–1.0 μg mL−1 in an admixture of ropivacaine 0.2% for 5 days, which is the usual period for postoperative epidural analgesia, remains stable in a polyvinylchloride reservoir. There is no change in the drug concentration even if the reservoir is stored for 4 weeks at 8°C.

Background and objective The aim of the present study was to compare and assess the quality of analgesia, the safety and the side-effects after the use of a continuous, thoracic epidural infusion of sufentanil (5 μg h−1), 0.25% bupivacaine (10 mL h−1), 0.2% ropivacaine (10 mL h−1) alone or in combination in patients who had undergone major urological surgery. This prospective, randomized, double-blinded study investigated the efficacy of thoracic epidural infusions after major urological surgery.

Methods Patients received a 72-h continuous infusion␣(10 mL h−1) of 0.25% bupivacaine (B), 0.2% ropivacaine (R), 0.25% bupivacaine with 0.5 μg mL−1 sufentanil (BS), 0.2% ropivacaine with 0.5 μg mL−1 sufentanil (RS) or 0.5 μg mL−1 sufentanil only (S). The analysis included 109 patients.

Results The mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for pain were highest in the groups R and S (P < 0.001). The PaCO2 values were significantly higher in the groups RS and S (P = 0.003). Motor block occurred more frequently in the groups B and BS than in the other groups (P < 0.001). Sedation, nausea and pruritus were more common in the groups that received sufentanil.

Conclusions A continuous, epidural infusion with these drugs was safe and effective in our patients. The combination of 0.2% ropivacaine plus sufentanil appeared preferable because of the low incidence of motor block.

Background and objective Late postoperative hypoxaemia after upper abdominal surgery is common even among cardiopulmonary healthy patients. Atelectasis may develop after intubation and persist into or reveal a disposition for atelectasis in the postoperative period. Positive end–expiratory pressure (PEEP) eliminates peroperative atelectasis but the effect on perioperative oxygenation is controversial. This study evaluated the effect of peroperative PEEP optimized pulmonary compliance on perioperative oxygenation and complications.

Methods Forty patients assessed by electrocardiography, spirometry, functional residual capacity and diffusion capacity were randomly assigned to receive positive end–expiratory pressure (PEEP) or zero endexpiratory pressure (ZEEP) during surgery. PaO2, SPO2 and complications in the postoperative period were evaluated without knowledge of peroperative PEEP or ZEEP application.

Results Peroperative arterial oxygenation improved for all patients receiving PEEP, mean 2.1 kPa (0.7–3.5 kPa). There was no difference in postoperative median PaO2 between the groups. The differences in the incidence of late prolonged postoperative hypoxaemia and complications were 25% (−5% to 55%) and −1% (−31% to 29%) between the ZEEP and the PEEP group, but were not statistically significant.