Transient neurologic symptoms after spinal anesthesia with mepivacaine and lidocaine. Transient neurologic symptoms after spinal anesthesia with lidocaine in obstetric patients. The incidence of transient neurologic symptoms (TNS) after spinal anaesthesia in patients undergoing surgery in the supine position. Hyperbaric lidocaine 5% versus hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5%. Transient neurologic symptoms after spinal anesthesia: a lower incidence with prilocaine and bupivacaine than with lidocaine. A randomised study of lidocaine and prilocaine for spinal anaesthesia. Transient neurologic symptoms after spinal anaesthesia using isobaric 2% mepivacaine and isobaric 2% lidocaine. Incidence of transient neurologic symptoms after hyperbaric subarachnoid anesthesia with 5% lidocaine and 5% prilocaine. Does pregnancy protect against intrathecal lidocaine-induced transient neurologic symptoms? The incidence of transient neurological symptoms after spinal anaesthesia with lidocaine compared to prilocaine. Procaine compared with lidocaine for incidence of transient neurologic symptoms. Urinary bladder scanning after day-case arthroscopy under spinal anaesthesia: comparison between lidocaine, ropivacaine, and levobupivacaine. Hyperosmolarity does not contribute to transient radicular irritation after spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric 5% lidocaine. [Transient neurological symptoms in puerperas after epidural analgesia during labor]. Transient radicular irritation after spinal anesthesia induced with hyperbaric solutions of cerebrospinal fluid-diluted lidocaine 50 mg/ml or mepivacaine 40 mg/ml or bupivacaine 5 mg/ml. Spinal anesthesia: a comparison of procaine and lidocaine. Lidocaine test in neuralgia.
Spinal anesthesia with lidocaine is ideal for ambulatory surgery because of its short duration of action. However, transient neurologic symptoms (TNS) occur in 0-40% of patients. The incidence of TNS with mepivacaine, which has a similar duration of action, is unknown.
                Sixty ambulatory patients undergoing knee arthroscopy received spinal anesthesia in a randomized, double-blinded manner, with either 45 mg 1.5% mepivacaine or 60 mg 2% lidocaine. An L3-L4 midline approach was used with a 27-gauge Whitacre needle and a 20-gauge introducer. The local anesthetic was injected over approximately 30 s with the aperture of the Whitacre needle in a cephalad direction. Two to 4 days after operation, each patient was questioned about the development of TNS. In addition, the two groups were compared for time to regression of sensory and motor blockade and time to discharge milestones.
                Three patients receiving lidocaine were lost to follow-up. None of the 30 patients in the mepivacaine group developed TNS, whereas 6 of 27 (22%) in the lidocaine group did (P = 0.008). Time to regression to the L5 sensory level and to complete resolution of motor block were similar in both groups. The times to discharge milestones were also comparable.
                The incidence of TNS is greater with 2% lidocaine than with 1.5% mepivacaine for patients having unilateral knee arthroscopy under spinal anesthesia. Mepivacaine seems to be a promising alternative to lidocaine for outpatient surgical procedures because of its similar duration of action. Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose of intrathecal mepivacaine for ambulatory surgery and the incidence of TNS with other doses and concentrations of intrathecal mepivacaine. We investigated the relationship between intrathecal lidocaine and transient neurologic symptoms in the obstetric population because lidocaine spinal anesthetics are commonly used for various obstetric procedures, and little has been reported in this regard from within this population. In this study, 58 ASA physical status I patients presenting for postpartum bilateral tubal ligation under spinal anesthesia were randomized to receive either hyperbaric 5% lidocaine or 0.75% bupivacaine in a double-blinded manner. All patients were in the supine position for their surgery. Postoperatively, all patients were followed by a blinded investigator using a standardized symptom checklist. The incidence of transient neurologic symptoms with lidocaine was 3% (95% confidence interval = 0.1%--17.8%) and that with bupivacaine was 7% (95% confidence interval = 0.9%--23.5%), (P = not significant). Symptoms consistent with this syndrome occurred within 24 h without any associated sensory or motor deficits or functional impairment, and resolved within 48 h without any intervention. The incidence of TNS after spinal anaesthesia is a problem. Especially the use of hyperbaric lidocaine in patients placed in the lithotomy position during surgery has been associated with a high incidence of TNS. The present study was performed to investigate whether TNS is present more frequently in patients undergoing surgery in the supine position with use of hyperbaric lidocaine compared with hyperbaric bupivacaine.
                Seventy patients were included and randomised to receive either hyperbaric lidocaine or hyperbaric bupivacaine. All patients were contacted on the first and third postoperative days by an anaesthesiologist blinded to the local anaesthetic used. The patients were asked about symptoms of TNS, pain not associated with the operation area, and asked to grade the complaints after a verbal analogue score from 0 to 10.
                We found a total of ten patients who showed signs of TNS. There were nine patients in the lidocaine group (26%) who showed signs of TNS compared to only one patient in the bupivacaine group (3%) (P<0.01). The average score of TNS complaints was 3.5. A total of 13 patients (19%) complained of back pain. There were no significant differences with regard to which local anaesthetic was used. The average score of back pain was 3.3.
                TNS is a significant problem in patients having spinal anaesthesia with hyperbaric lidocaine compared to hyperbaric bupivacaine, both in the supine position. For day-case surgery, TNS would start after dismissal from hospital. The use of hyperbaric lidocaine is therefore questionable, even though these problems are of an order that the majority of patients would still choose spinal anaesthesia for future operations. Recent evidence suggests that transient neurologic symptoms (TNSs) frequently follow lidocaine spinal anesthesia but are infrequent with bupivacaine. However, identification of a short-acting local anesthetic to substitute for lidocaine for brief surgical procedures remains an important goal. Prilocaine is an amide local anesthetic with a duration of action similar to that of lidocaine. Accordingly, the present, prospective double-blind study compares prilocaine with lidocaine and bupivacaine with respect to duration of action and relative risk of TNSs.
                Ninety patients classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II who were scheduled for short gynecologic procedures under spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive 2.5 ml 2% lidocaine in 7.5% glucose, 2% prilocaine in 7.5% glucose, or 0.5% bupivacaine in 7.5% glucose. All solutions were provided in blinded vials by the hospital pharmacy. Details of spinal puncture, extension and regression of spinal block, and the times to reach discharge criteria were noted. In the evening of postoperative day 1, patients were evaluated for TNSs by a physician unaware of the drug administered and the details of the anesthetic procedure.
                Nine of 30 patients receiving lidocaine experienced TNSs, 1 of 30 patients receiving prilocaine (P = 0.03) had them, and none of 30 patients receiving bupivacaine had TNSs. Times to ambulate and to void were similar after lidocaine and prilocaine (150 vs. 165 min and 238 vs. 253 min, respectively) but prolonged after bupivacaine (200 and 299 min, respectively; P < 0.05).
                Prilocaine may be preferable to lidocaine for short surgical procedures because it has a similar duration of action but a lower incidence of TNSs. Transient neurologic symptoms (TNS) are common after lidocaine-induced spinal anaesthesia (SA). Recent data indicate that TNS may be less frequent after prilocaine-induced spinal anaesthesia, for which reason the isobaric solution was compared with lidocaine.
                One hundred patients scheduled for short urologic procedures under spinal anaesthesia were randomised to receive 80 mg prilocaine or lidocaine, both 20 mg/ml. The clinical course and the duration of anaesthesia were monitored. The following day an anaesthesiologist unaware of the randomisation interviewed the patients using a structured questionnaire.
                Following prilocaine spinal anaesthesia the mean time until 2-segment regression was 123(SD 42) min and total sensory block lasted 221(49) min, compared to 106(26) and 181(48) min following lidocaine. TNS occurred in 7/49 patients in the lidocaine group and in 2/50 in the prilocaine group (ns).
                TNS occurred also after isobaric prilocaine SA. The frequency was not significantly different from that following lidocaine SA but larger studies are needed to establish the relative risk of TNS following SA induced by the two local anaesthetics. Isobaric prilocaine has a longer duration of action than an equal dose of lidocaine and may be an alternative drug for spinal anaesthesia of intermediate or short duration. Transient Neurological Symptoms (TNS) syndrome following subarachnoid anaesthesia was initially associated with hyperbaric lidocaine 50 mg/ml, but has also been reported with most local anaesthetics, including hyperbaric mepivacaine 40 mg/ml. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of TNS after subarachnoid anaesthesia using isobaric mepivacaine 20 mg/ml and isobaric lidocaine 20 mg/ml.
                Eighty patients of both sexes, ASA class I-II, scheduled for elective minor orthopaedic surgery under subarachnoid anaesthesia, were prospectively included and randomly allocated to receive 40-60 mg of either isobaric mepivacaine 20 mg/ml (Group M) or isobaric lidocaine 20 mg/ml (Group L). Patients were evaluated on the first postoperative day by one investigator unaware of the grouping, looking for symptoms suggestive of TNS, such as pain or dysaesthesias in the buttocks or lower limbs with or without back pain.
                TNS symptoms were observed in three patients (7.5%) of Group M and in one patient (2.5%) of Group L, without statistically significant differences between the groups. Symptoms had an abrupt onset and relief, lasted from 45 min to 24 h, and had a complete resolution without sequelae. The only statistically significant difference between groups was longer motor blockade in Group M (P=0.0031).
                In this study TNS was associated with isobaric mepivacaine 20 mg/ml, with an incidence of 7.5%, and with isobaric lidocaine 20 mg/ml, with an incidence of 2.5%, in patients having orthopaedic procedures in the supine position. Hyperbaric 5% lidocaine has been associated with transient neurologic symptoms (TNSs) after spinal anesthesia. A prospective, masked, randomized study was conducted to compare the incidence of TNSs after spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric 5% lidocaine or 5% prilocaine to assess the utility of prilocaine as an alternative to lidocaine in patients having short surgical procedures.
                The number of patients to be enrolled (100 per group) was determined by power analysis (80%, P = 0.05) considering an incidence of TNSs after spinal anesthesia with lidocaine of at least 11% according to data reported in other studies. Two hundred patients scheduled for elective surgery expected to last <60 min were allocated at random to receive spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric 5% lidocaine or hyperbaric 5% prilocaine. Three to 5 days after spinal anesthesia, all patients were interviewed by an anesthesiologist who was blinded to the group assignment and details of the anesthetic and surgical technique using a standardized symptom checklist. Patients with symptoms underwent neurologic examination.
                Both groups were comparable with regard to demographic data and details of the surgical and anesthetic procedures. The incidence of TNSs in both groups was low and differences were not found (4% in the lidocaine group and 1% in the prilocaine group). The mean age of patients with TNSs (58 yr) was higher than that of patients without TNSs (48 yr; P < 0.05). No relation with any of the other variables was found.
                The low incidence of TNSs among lidocaine-anesthetized patients (4%) may account for the lack of significant differences between hyperbaric 5% lidocaine and 5% prilocaine and to the insufficient power of the study to exclude the possibility of a type II error. We investigated the incidence of transient neurologic symptoms (TNS) after the use of hyperbaric lidocaine as compared with hyperbaric bupivacaine in patients undergoing cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. Two hundred women scheduled for cesarean delivery were randomly allocated to receive spinal anesthesia with 75 mg hyperbaric lidocaine 5% (n = 100) or 12 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.75% (n = 100). Spinal anesthesia was administered to all patients in the sitting position with a 25-gauge Whitacre needle. The level of sensory blockade, time to full recovery, and intraoperative hemodynamic profile were noted in all patients. The patients were interviewed postoperatively for three consecutive days to detect the occurrence of TNS. The incidence of TNS was zero (95% confidence interval 0%--3%) in both the Lidocaine and the Bupivacaine Groups. Our results indicate that the frequency of postoperative TNS does not exceed 3% in patients undergoing cesarean delivery at term using hyperbaric lidocaine 5% or hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.75%. The purpose of this double-blind study was to investigate the incidence of transient neurological symptoms after the use of isobaric lidocaine and isobaric prilocaine for spinal anaesthesia. Seventy patients (ASA 1-2, age between 18 and 70 years) were randomly assigned to two groups of 35 patients each, to receive either isobaric 2% lidocaine 4 ml or isobaric 2% prilocaine 4 ml intrathecally, at the L3-4 interspace. One patient in the prilocaine group could not be included because data were incomplete. On the first postoperative day, patients were evaluated for transient neurological symptoms. Pain was scored on a 10-point scale. Seven patients (20%) in the lidocaine group had transient neurological symptoms with a mean pain score of 5.3, whereas no patient in the prilocaine group had these complaints (p = 0.006). Symptoms disappeared within 4 days. Prilocaine results in a lower incidence of transient neurological symptoms than lidocaine intrathecally and therefore it is more suitable for short surgical procedures. Transient neurologic symptoms (TNS) have been reported to occur after 16% to 40% of ambulatory lidocaine spinal anesthetics. Patient discomfort and the possibility of underlying lidocaine neurotoxicity have prompted a search for alternative local anesthetic agents. We compared the incidence of TNS with procaine or lidocaine spinal anesthesia in a 2:1 dose ratio.
                Seventy outpatients undergoing knee arthroscopy were blindly randomized to receive either 100 mg hyperbaric procaine or 50 mg hyperbaric lidocaine. An interview by a blinded investigator established the presence or absence of TNS, defined as pain in the buttocks or lower extremities beginning within 24 hours of surgery. Onset of sensory and motor block, patient discomfort, supplemental anesthetics, and side effects were recorded by the unblinded managing anesthesia team. Anesthetic adequacy was determined from these data by a single blinded investigator. Hospital discharge time was recorded from the patient record. Groups were compared using appropriate statistics with a P < .05 considered significant.
                TNS occurred in 6% of procaine patients versus 31% of lidocaine patients (P = .007). Sensory block with procaine and lidocaine was similar, while motor block was decreased with procaine (P < .05). A trend toward a higher rate of block inadequacy (17% v 3%, P = .11) and intraoperative nausea (17% v 3%, P = .11) occurred with procaine. Average hospital discharge time with procaine was increased by 29 minutes (P < .05).
                The incidence of TNS was substantially lower with procaine than with lidocaine. However, procaine resulted in a lower overall quality of anesthesia and a prolonged average discharge time. If the shortfalls of procaine as studied can be overcome, it may provide a suitable alternative to lidocaine for outpatient spinal anesthesia to minimize the risk of TNS. Micturition problems after spinal anaesthesia may delay hospital discharge. The use of lidocaine has raised concerns because of the occurrence of transient neurological symptoms (TNS). This randomized double-blind study was designed to compare the newer local anaesthetics with lidocaine regarding block characteristics, micturition problems, and discharge times in day-case spinals for arthroscopy.
                Ninety patients received either isobaric lidocaine 60 mg, ropivacaine 15 mg, or levobupivacaine 10 mg intrathecally. Urinary bladder volumes were measured by ultrasound imaging at regular time intervals until a post-voiding residual volume (PVRV) less than 100 ml was obtained. Micturition problems were classified in five groups ranging from no problems to those requiring catheterization.
                Times to regain a Bromage-1 and -0 motor block were similar in the three groups but sensory block regression to L2 occurred at 145 (30) min in the lidocaine group, 25-30 min (P<0.05) faster than the other groups. Lidocaine allowed voiding after 245 (65) min and hospital discharge 265 (70) min after spinal injection, 40 min faster than in the two other groups. The incidence or degree of micturition problems were not different between after discharge, three patients (10%) receiving lidocaine complained of symptoms compatible with TNS.
                Our study suggested that the three local anaesthetics behave similar regarding quality of anaesthesia and motor block but voiding and discharge occurred significantly earlier with lidocaine although the 40 min difference was not impressive considering a spinal discharge time interval of 4-5 h. In addition to major neurologic injury, local anesthesia toxicity may also include less severe but more common neurologic side effects. The authors recently observed symptoms suggestive of transient radicular irritation in one third of patients after spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric 5% lidocaine, whereas evidence of neurologic symptoms was lacking with hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine. The purpose of this prospective double-blinded study was to evaluate if the high osmolarity of hyperbaric 5% lidocaine solution might contribute to the development of transient radicular irritation.
                Forty-four patients undergoing brief gynecologic procedures under spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive 1.5 mL of one of three study drugs: 5% lidocaine in 7.5% dextrose (drug A), 0.5% bupivacaine in 8.25% dextrose (drug B), or 5% lidocaine in 2.7% dextrose (drug C). Drug C was prepared by the pharmacy (University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland) with an osmolarity similar to that of drug B. Drugs A and B were commercially available. Patients were evaluated on postoperative day 1 for symptoms of transient radicular irritation by an anesthesiologist who was unaware of the drug given or details of the anesthetic technique.
                Symptoms suggestive of transient radicular irritation were observed with a similar high incidence in patients receiving both lidocaine preparations, but in no patient receiving hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine (P < .01).
                The results suggest that transient radicular irritation did not result from the marked hyperosmolarity of the hyperbaric 5% lidocaine. However, because lidocaine and bupivacaine were not administered at equipotent dosages, the relative potential for both drugs to induce transient radicular irritation remains to be determined. The investigation was undertaken to elucidate the impact of epidural analgesia (EA) during labor on the incidence of transient neurological symptoms (TNS). By the agreement of a local ethics committee, an informed consent was obtained from 90 healthy puerperas enrolled in the investigation. The patients were randomized into 3 groups, with 30 patients in each. At the beginning of labor, an epidural catheter was inserted in all the puerperas. For EA, 1% lidocaine solution and 0.2% ropivacaine solution were used in Groups 1 and 2, respectively; Group 3 was control in which EA was not performed. Two days after labor, an independent observer asked the females about possible neurological symptoms, by using the standard questionnaire. TNS included symmetric pain and/or dysesthesia in the buttocks, lower lumbar region, and/or legs. The patients who presented problems were proposed to indicate the degree of discomfort by a 10-score verbal scale. The findings were statistically processed using the U-test and X-test (p < 0. 05). A total of TNS occurred in 22 (25%) patients, including 7 (27%), 8 (27%), and 7 (23%) in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant. The duration of TNS was generally short; in all the patients, the symptoms were completely resolved after 24-72 hours. Labor EA is not a cause of TNS. The type of a local anesthetic (lidocaine, ropivacaine) does not affect the incidence of TNS in puerperas after labor EA. Transient radicular irritation (TRI) is common after spinal anesthesia induced with hyperbaric lidocaine 50 mg/ml. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of TRI after spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric lidocaine 50 mg/ml diluted with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) 1:1 and hyperbaric mepivacaine 40 mg/ml and hyperbaric bupivacaine 5 mg/ml.
                Ninety ASA class I-IV patients undergoing mostly brief urological procedures under spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive either hyperbaric lidocaine 50 mg/ml diluted with CSF 1:1 (Group L), hyperbaric mepivacaine 40 mg/ml (Group M) or hyperbaric bupivacaine 5 mg/ml (Group B). Characteristics of the patients and details of the surgical procedures and spinal anesthesias were similar in all groups except for the intensity of motor block. The patients were evaluated on the first postoperative day by an anesthesiologist who did not know which spinal anesthetic agent had been used.
                Six patients (20%) in group L, 11 patients (37%) in Group M and none (0%) in Group B experienced pain in the legs and/or back (TRI) after spinal anesthesia.
                TRI is frequent after spinal anesthesia induced with hyperbaric lidocaine 50 mg/ml diluted with CSF 1:1. The incidence of TRI after hyperbaric mepivacaine 40 mg/ml is of the same magnitude. TRI could not be observed after bupivacaine spinal anesthesia. To compare spinal procaine to spinal lidocaine with regard to their main clinical characteristics and incidence of transient radicular irritation (TRI).
                In this randomized, double-blind, prospective study, patients (two groups, n=30 each) received either 100 mg of lidocaine 5% in 7.5% glucose (Group L) or 100 mg of procaine 10% diluted with 1 ml cerebrospinal fluid (Group P). After spinal anesthesia, segmental level of sensory block was assessed by pinprick. Blood pressure and the height of the block were noted each minute for the first ten minutes, then every three minutes for the next 35 min and finally every five minutes until regression of the block to L4. Motor blockade was evaluated using the Bromage scale. To evaluate the presence of TRI, each patient was questioned 48 hr after surgery.
                Time to highest sensory level and to maximum number of segments blocked showed no difference between groups. Mean time for sensory regression to T10 and for regression of the motor block were shorter in Group P. Eighty minutes following injection, sensory levels were lower in Group P. Five patients had inadequate surgical anesthesia in Group P and only one in Group L. No patient in Group P had TRI (95% CI 10-12%) while eight (27%) in Group L did (95% CI 12-46%).
                Procaine 10% was associated with a clinical failure rate of 14.2%. This characteristic must be balanced against an absence of TRI, which occurs more frequently with the use of lidocaine 5%. Ten patients with organic nerve injury causing chronic neuropathic pain were tested for the effects of intravenous lidocaine versus saline upon psychophysical somatosensory variables. The variables assessed were the subjective magnitude of pain, area of mechanical hyperalgesia and presence and magnitude of thermal heat/cold hyperalgesia. The study methods applied to evaluate these conditions were the conventional testing of somatosensory submodalities with area mapping and the subjective magnitude estimation of spontaneous pain. It was found that spontaneous pain and mechanical hyperalgesia were consistently improved, transiently, by intravenous administration of lidocaine in all 10 patients; areas of hyperalgesia which extended beyond the territory of the nerve also improved transiently. Spontaneous pain and mechanical hyperalgesia, but not hypoesthesia, were transiently improved by injection of saline in only 1 of the 10 patients. This outcome is probably due to a placebo effect. This improvement is in keeping with the inhibition of anomalous neural impulses which can be generated anywhere along the sensory channels responsible for generating spontaneous pain and hyperalgesia. Thus, intravenous lidocaine is proposed as a diagnostic aid in the examination of patients complaining of complex sensory disorders associated with nerve injury. The transient pain relief may allow a fuller identification of the area of sensory loss.
The risk of developing TNS after spinal anaesthesia with lidocaine was significantly higher than when bupivacaine, prilocaine, or procaine were used. The term 'transient neurological symptoms' implies neurologic pathology. Failing identification of the pathogenesis of TNS, consideration should be given to choosing a neutral descriptive term which does not imply a particular causation. One study about the impact of TNS on patient satisfaction and functional impairment demonstrated that non-TNS patients were more satisfied and had less functional impairment after surgery than TNS patients, but this did not influence their willingness to recommend spinal anaesthesia.