Skip Navigation


BJA Advance Access first published online on July 21, 2006
This version published online on August 2, 2006
British Journal of Anaesthesia, doi:10.1093/bja/ael182
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
97/3/365    most recent
ael182v2
ael182v1
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
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 Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van Tuijl, I.
Right arrow Articles by Kalkman, C. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by van Tuijl, I.
Right arrow Articles by Kalkman, C. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2006. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Accepted June 1, 2006

Clinical Investigation

The effect of addition of intrathecal clonidine to hyperbaric bupivacaine on postoperative pain and morphine requirements after Caesarean section: A randomized controlled trial

I. van Tuijl 1 *, W. A. van Klei 1, D. B. M. van der Werff 1, and C. J. Kalkman 1

1 Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
I. van Tuijl, E-mail: I.vanTuyl{at}umcutrecht.nl


  Abstract

Background. Intrathecal clonidine prolongs spinal anaesthesia. We investigated the effect of the addition of clonidine (75 µg) to hyperbaric bupivacaine on postoperative morphine consumption after Caesarean section in a randomized controlled double-blind trial.

Methods. A group of 106 women received spinal anaesthesia using either bupivacaine 0.5% (2.2 ml) heavy with 0.5 ml normal saline 0.9% (B) or bupivacaine 0.5% (2.2 ml) heavy with clonidine (75 µg) in 0.5 ml normal saline 0.9% (BC). The primary outcome was the total morphine consumption in the first 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes were the duration of postoperative analgesia, postoperative pain scores, the need for alfentanil during surgery, block regression, clonidine side-effects and morphine side-effects.

Results. Total morphine consumption was similar in both study groups. The mean time to the first analgesic request in the BC group was 129 (SD 13.8) min, compared with 55 (14.2) min in the B group [mean difference (95% CI) -75 (-106 to -44) min]. In the BC group 22 (42%) patients had a complete motor block 1 h after surgery compared with 4 (8%) patients in the B group [RR (95% CI) 0.18 (0.07-0.49)]. Side-effects of intrathecal clonidine were not detected.

Conclusions. The addition of clonidine (75 µg) to hyperbaric bupivacaine prolongs spinal anaesthesia after Caesarean section and improves early analgesia, but does not reduce the postoperative morphine consumption during the first 24 h. No clinically relevant maternal or neonatal side-effects were detected.

Keywords: analgesics opioid, morphine, consumption; anaesthesia, obstetric, Caesarean section; anaesthetic techniques, regional, spinal; sympathetic nervous system, clonidine.
This is a new version of this article as there was an error in the Tables in the first version.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
P. M. Lavand'homme, F. Roelants, H. Waterloos, V. Collet, and M. F. De Kock
An Evaluation of the Postoperative Antihyperalgesic and Analgesic Effects of Intrathecal Clonidine Administered During Elective Cesarean Delivery
Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2008; 107(3): 948 - 955.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.