Contents
Download PDF
pdf Download XML
51 Views
7 Downloads
Share this article
Research Article | Volume 15 Issue 1 (Jan - Feb, 2025) | Pages 136 - 142
In Lower Limb Orthopaedic Surgeries, a Comparative Study of Butorphanol and Buprenorphine as An Adjuvant With 0.5% Buprevacaine for Spinal Anesthesia.
 ,
 ,
 ,
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, Govt Medical College Nizamabad, India
2
Assistant Professor Department of Anaesthesia Govt Medical College Nizamabad, India
3
Professor In Department of Anaesthesia, Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad Telangana. India
4
Senior Resident, Department of Anaesthesia, Govt Medical College Nizamabad, India
Under a Creative Commons license
Open Access
Received
Nov. 20, 2024
Revised
Dec. 3, 2024
Accepted
Dec. 24, 2024
Published
Jan. 14, 2025
Abstract

Introduction A common anesthetic method for a range of lower limb orthopedic procedures is spinal anesthesia due to its ease of administration, robust sensory and motor blocking, and reliable surgical anesthesia. However, the length of spinal anesthesia caused by local anesthetics alone is often brief; for this reason, adjuvants are employed to prolong analgesia and improve block quality. The quality and duration of spinal anesthesia have been enhanced by intrathecal opioids such as morphine, fentanyl, and butorphanol used as adjuvants to local anesthetics. Material And Method Written informed permission was obtained from research participants. A computer-generated random number was used to divide the minimum number of patients who met the inclusion criteria into two groups. Group A patients got 3 milliliters of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine along with 0.2 milliliters, butorphanol (200 micrograms). Group B patients got 0.15 ml of buprenorphine (150 micrograms) together with 3 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Result The gathered information was imported into Microsoft Excel 2016 and examined using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows.Descriptive statistics were employed to characterize the data: for continuous variables, the mean and standard deviation were utilized, and for categorical variables, frequency analysis and percentage analysis. Using the Independent sample t-test, the bivariate samples in the independent groups were compared to see whether there was a significant difference. Conclusion According to our study onset of sensory blockade and faster with butorphanol and duration of sensory blockade was more in buprenorphine compared to butorphanol whereas motor blockade is comparable in both groups. Buprenorphine group required rescue analgesia at 4hrs postoperatively whereas butorphanol group required rescue analgesia at 2nd hr Hence we conclude that buprenorphine would be beneficial for lower limb orthopedic surgeries as it provides prolonged duration of analgesia although further studies need to be done in a greater number of patients and for prolonged duration of procedures..

Keywords
INTRODUCTION

The simplicity of administration, thick sensory and motor blocking, and dependable surgical anesthesia of spinal anesthesia make it a popular anesthetic approach for a variety of lower limb orthopedic operations. Nevertheless, local anesthetics alone frequently have a short duration of spinal anesthesia, which is why adjuvants are used to extend analgesia and enhance block quality. As adjuvants to local anesthetics, intrathecal opioids including morphine, fentanyl, and butorphanol have been used to improve the quality and duration of spinal anesthesia. [1].

In 1957, Eckenstam introduced buprevacaine, and in 1963, Telivno began using it in therapeutic settings. In practically all surgical instances, hyperbaric bupivacaine is currently utilized in conjunction with opioids. Bupivacaine is a local anesthetic of the amide type that is highly effective and slow long duration of effect and commencement (5-8 minutes). Even while intrathecal bupivacaine alone itself provides effective sensory blockage, many patients nevertheless suffer some pain and discomfort and may need intraoperative analgesic supplements. [2]

Synthetic opioids like butorphanol have agonistic effects at kappa receptors and partly agonistic and antagonistic effects at µ receptors. Its efficacy as an analgesic is four to eight times that of morphine. [3] Its ceiling impact on respiratory depression, decreased potential for addiction, sedation that is on par with or better than morphine, and lower incidence of nausea, vomiting, and pruritis—all of which are desired in the post-operative period—make it safer than pure opioid agonists.

 

A mixed agonist-antagonist, buprenorphine has a strong agonistic impact on µ opiate receptors and an antagonistic effect on µ opiate receptors.[4] Because of its modest intrinsic activity, this opioid can also be safely delivered in the subarachnoid region. Because of its large molecular weight and lipophilicity, it might not distribute as much in the brain. Combining intrathecal administration with 0.5%Compared to 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine alone, hyperbaric Bupivacaine should offer superior postoperative analgesia. [5]

In contrast to intravenous opioids, intrathecal opioids have the advantage of having no ceiling effect. Thus, its applications have included patient-controlled analgesia and postoperative analgesia. In order to examine the analgesic effectiveness of butorphanol and buprenorphine as an adjuvant to 0.5% heavy bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for patients undergoing orthopedic procedures on the lower limbs, this research was designed.

METHODOLOGY

Study design: Randomized comparative study.

Study setting: Patients undergoing lower limb orthopedic surgeries under Spinal anaesthesia in the department of Anaesthesia in Government Medical college, Nizamabad.

Approximate total duration of the study: 1 year Number of groups studied: 2

 

Sample size of each group: 30 Total sample size: 60

 

Inclusion Criteria

  1. ASA I & II
  2. Patients aged between 18-60years of age
  3. Weight between 40-80kgs
  4. Height between 150-180cms
  5. Patient who are able to give valid consent

 

Exclusion Criteria

  1. Patients who are unable to give informed consent.
  2. Patients who are physically dependent on opioids.
  3. Patients who have history of drug allergy to the above drugs.
  4. Patients who are pregnant.
  5. Patients who have an underlying coagulopathy.
  6. Patients with local site infection
  7. Glaucoma
  8. Breastfeeding
  9. History of cardiac, pulmonary, hepatic or renal impairment.

 

METHODLOGY

A written informed consent was taken from patients included in the study. Minimum 60 patients who fulfilled inclusion criteria were randomized using computer generated random numbers into two groups.

 

Patients included in Group A received 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine 3ml with 0.2 ml of butorphanol (200micrograms)

Patients included in Group B received 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine 3ml with 0.15ml buprenorphine (150 micrograms).

 

All patients were given T. Ranitidine150mg night before surgery. On arrival in operating room, all basic monitors were connected such as non-invasive blood pressure, pulse oximetry and ECG. Intravenous access achieved using 20G cannula.

 

Paients were positioned in left lateral position and under aseptic conditions, parts painted and draped, lumbar puncture done using 25G Quinckes spinal needle in L4-L5 space.after confirming free flow of cerebrospinal fluid, the assigned drug belonging to group A or B was injected intrathecally. Patients were then positioned in supine after procedure

RESULTS

Table 1: Comparison Of Age Distribution Between The Groups

 

Groups

Total

p-value

A

B

 

 

 

 

 

Age

21 - 30 yrs

N

3

4

7

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.853

%

10.0%

13.3%

11.7%

31 - 40 yrs

N

8

9

17

%

26.7%

30.0%

28.3%

41 - 50 yrs

N

10

7

17

%

33.3%

23.3%

28.3%

51 - 60 yrs

N

9

10

19

%

30.0%

33.3%

31.7%

Total

N

30

30

60

%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

 

Figure 1 Comparison Of Age Distribution Between Groups The Above Table And Figure Shows Comparison Of Age Distribution Between Groups With p>0.05 Which Shows No Statistical Significance Association.

 

Table 2: Comparison Of Gender Distribution Between Groups

 

Groups

Total

p-value

A

B

 

 

Gender

Female

N

10

7

17

 

 

 

0.390

%

33.3%

23.3%

28.3%

Male

N

20

23

43

%

66.7%

76.7%

71.7%

Total

N

30

30

60

%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

 

Figure : 2 comparison of Gender distribution between groupsThe above table and figure shows comparison of Gender distribution between Groups p>0.05 which shows no statistical significance association between Gender and Groups

 

Table 3: Comparison Of Asa Grade Between The Groups

 

Groups

Total

p-value

A

B

ASA  Grade

I

N

13

12

25

 

 

 

0.793

%

43.3%

40.0%

41.7%

II

N

17

18

35

%

56.7%

60.0%

58.3%

Total

Count

30

30

60

%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

 

Figure 3 comparison of ASA grade between groups The above table and figure shows comparison of ASA grade between Groups p>0.05 which shows no statistical significance association between ASA grade and Groups.

 

Table 4: Comparison Of Time To Reach T10 Sensory Level Block (Min) Between Groups

 

Variable

Groups

N

Mean

SD

t-value

p-value

Time for t10 level (min)

Group A

30

6.0

1.5

1.122

0.266

Group B

30

6.5

1.7

 

Figure 4 comparison of time to reach T10 sensory level block between groupsThe above table and figure shows comparison of Time to reach T10 sensory level block (min) between Groups p >0.05 which shows no statistical significance difference between the groups.

 

Table 5: Comparison Of Time to Reach Maximum Sensory Level Block (Mins) Between Groups

Variable

Groups

N

Mean

SD

p-value

Time for max sensory block (mins)

Group A

30

10.1

1.3

 

0.510

Group B

30

9.7

3.1

 

Figure 5 Comparison of time to reach maximum sensory block between Groups The above table and figure shows comparison of Time to reach maximum sensory block (mins) between Groups which shows no statistical significance difference at p > 0.05 level.

 

Table 6: Comparison Of Time To Reach Complete Motor Block (Mins) Between Groups

Variable

Groups

N

Mean

SD

p-value

Time for  complete motor block (mins)

Group A

30

6.5

1.7

 

0.003

Figure 6 comparison of time to reach complete motor block between groups The above table and figure shows comparison of time to reach complete motor block (mins) between Groups which shows highly statistical significance difference at p < 0.01 level in Group A.

DISCUSSION

Since spinal anesthesia is simple to administer, provides strong sensory and motor blockage, and is a dependable surgical anesthetic, it is frequently utilized for a variety of lower limb orthopedic procedures. Unfortunately, local anesthetics alone frequently have a short duration of spinal anesthesia; thus, adjuvants are used to extend the duration of analgesia and enhance the quality of the block. In order to improve the quality and duration of spinal anesthesia, intrathecal opioids including morphine, fentanyl, and butorphanol have been used as adjuvants to local anesthetics.

 

Howeverorphanol was given to Group A and buprenorphine to Group B in this prospective, randomized, comparative research, which involved 60 individuals. As compared to buprenorphine, we found that butorphanol caused analgesia and total motor block to start more quickly, whereas buprenorphine caused analgesia to last longer.

Comparison Of Sensory Blockade

In our study, butorphanol and buprenorphine enabled an earlier onset and establishment of analgesia. Onset of sensory block was faster in butorphanol when compared to buprenorphine. The time to reach T10 level was comparable in both groups. The time to reach maximum sensory blockade was comparable in both groups. The addition of these two adjuvants promotes faster onset as compared to time of onset of sensory analgesia with Bupivacaine alone.

 

Duration Of Sensory Block

Duration of analgesia was significantly prolonged in Buprenorphine group when compared to butorphanol. Patients who received buprenorphine did not require rescue analgesia for more than 6 hours post operatively when compared to rescue analgesia at 2-4 hours for patients who received Butorphanol. Postoperative pain relief was siginificantly improved in both groups, with buprenorphine providing the longest duration of analgesia.

 

Comparison Of Motor Blockade

In our study, onset of motor blockade was comparable in both groups and the time to reach complete motor block was significantly increased in patients who received butorphanol when compared to those who received buprenorphine.

 

Hemodynamic Parameters

In our present study, there were statistically no significant differences in heart rate observed at any time duration during the study period. There was statistically significant increase in systolic blood pressures (mmHg) between the two groups at 85 mins at one time during the study period. There was statistically no significant difference in diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) between the two groups at any time during the study. There is no statistically significant difference in mean arterial pressure between both groups at any time during the study. Overally, the hemodynamic status was maintained in both groups.

 

Post Operative Analgesia

In our study, the pain scores was assessed using VAS were low and remained low for a significant time in the post operative period in both group A and group B. The results indicate a highly statistically significant difference at the p < 0.01 level for 3rd hr and no statistically significant difference at the p > 0.05 level for all other time durations.

CONCLUSION

While motor blockade is similar in both groups, our study found that buprenorphine caused sensory blockade to start more quickly than butorphanol and that its length was longer. While the butorphanol group needed rescue analgesia in the second hour after surgery, the buprenorphine group needed it at the fourth.Because buprenorphine offers a longer duration of analgesia, we infer that it might be advantageous for lower limb orthopedic operations. However, additional research including a larger number of patients and longer procedure length is required.

REFERENCES
  1. Tompkins D, Smith M, Campbell C, Strain E. A prospective study of withdrawal- associated hyperalgesia in opioid dependent volunteers. J Pain. 2013 Apr;14(4 Suppl)
  2. Chavan G, Chavan A, Ghosh A. Effect of intrathecal fentanyl on subarachnoid block with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Int J Healthc Biomed Res. 2014;2(4):67-76.
  3. Hunt CO, Naulty M, Mallinow AM, Datta S, Ostheimer GW. Epidural butorphanol- bupivacaine for analgesia during labor and delivery. Anesth Analg. 1989;68:454-8.
  4. Nelamangala K, Madhusudhana R, Krishnamurthy D, Vasantha NSK. Comparative study of intrathecal bupivacaine with additives buprenorphine and fentanyl for post- operative analgesia. IOSR J Dent Med Sci. 2016;15(6):39-42.
  5. Khan FA, Hamdani GA. Comparison of intrathecal fentanyl and buprenorphine in urological surgery. J Pak Med Assoc. 2006;56(6):277-81.
  6. Lanz E, Simko G, Theiss D, Glocke MH. Epidural buprenorphine — A double-blind study of postoperative analgesia and side effects. Anesth Analg. 1984;63:593-8.
  7. Sen M. Intrathecal buprenorphine for postoperative analgesia in orthopedic surgery. J Indian Med Assoc. 1992;90:5-6.
  8. Malik P, Manchanda C, Malhotra N. Comparative evaluation of epidural fentanyl and butorphanol for postoperative analgesia. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2006;22:377-
  9. Dixit S. Post operative analgesia after caesarean section: An experience with intrathecal buprenorphine. Indian journal of anaesthesia. 2007 Nov 1;51(6):515-8.
  10. Ipe S, Korula S, Varma S, George GM, Abraham SP, Koshy LR. A comparative study of intrathecal and epidural buprenorphine using combined spinal-epidural technique for caesarean section. Indian J Anaesth. 2010;54:205-9.
  11. Reddy NG, Manohar S, Supriya P, Himani A. Comparison of efficacy of butorphanol and fentanyl as intrathecal adjuvant to bupivacaine. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2015;4:5675-
  12. Kumar A, Kumar R, Verma VK, Prasad C, Kumar R, Kant S, et al. A randomized controlled study between fentanyl and butorphanol with low dose intrathecal bupivacaine to facilitate early postoperative ambulation in urological procedures. Anesth Essays Res. 2016;10:508-11.
  13. Gayatri P, Lakshmi BS. Comparing the efficacy of epidural buprenorphine versus epidural butorphanol in postoperative pain relief in laparoscopic Surgeries: A randomized double blinded controlled study. Int J Sci Res. 2020;9(1):1274–6.
  14. Naik VB, Reddy P, Reddy BC, et al. Postoperative epidural analgesia: A comparative study between bupivacaine with buprenorphine and bupivacaine with butorphanol for lower limb orthopaedic surgeries. Indian J Anesth Analg. 2018;5(5).
  15. Reddy IR, Aasim SA, Kumar JM. Efficacy of intrathecal fentanyl and butorphanol for lower limb orthopedic surgery: A randomized comparative study. Ann Int Med Den Res. 2019;5(2)
  16. Kumar SM, Kaladhar R. Comparison of analgesic effects of epidural butorphanol versus epidural buprenorphine in post operative patients after lower limb orthopaedic surgeries. Indian J Appl Res. 2019;9:61–58.
  17. Chavda H, Kumar K, Sirohi J, Shah SR, Bhavsar GM. Comparison among intrathecal fentanyl and butorphanol as an adjuvant to hyperbaric bupivacaine for lower limb orthopaedic procedures. Indian J Appl Basic Med Sci. 2021;23(1):316-7.
  18. Tulsyan et Ain-Shams J Anesthesiol. 2021;13:7.
  19. Sharma A, Kumari A, Gupta R, Kaur S, Arora D, Kaur K. Comparison of intrathecal bupivacaine-fentanyl and bupivacaine-butorphanol combinations for joint replacement surgeries. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2022;38:79-83.
  20. Sujay JN, Prakash BC, Savitha LM, Kalaburgi RA. Comparison of epidural bupivacaine and buprenorphine to bupivacaine and butorphanol for postoperative analgesia in lower limb orthopedic surgery. Anesthesiol Pain Med. 2023 Apr 1;13(2).
  21. Mallappa K, Manjunath BN, Narendra PL, Kavi A comparison of intrathecal clonidine and buprenorphine as spinal anesthesia adjuvant for abdominal and lower limb surgeries. Asian J Med Sci. 2023;14(7).
  22. Saleh M, Malik S, Memon GN, Rehman M. Comparative study on analgesia duration with bupivacaine-buprenorphine combination vs. bupivacaine alone for cesarean delivery. Anaesth Pain Intensive Care. 2023;27(5).
  23. Koller C. On the use of cocaine for producing anaesthesia on the eye. Lancet.1884;124(3197):990-2.
  24. Healy TE, Knight PR, editors. Wylie Churchill-Davidson's A Practice of Anesthesia 7th Edition. CRC press; 2003 Oct 31.
  25. Hajdu Discovery of the cerebrospinal fluid. Annals of Clinical & Laboratory Science. 2003 Jul 1;33(3):334-6.
  26. Roger Skilled system-Axial skeleton. Peter WL edt. Gray’s anatomy, 38th edition. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. 1995..
  27. HOLFORD LC, COUSINS M. 15 Neuraxial analgesia. Cancer Pain: Assessment and Management. 2009 Oct 12:287.
  28. Principles of 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger; 1993.
  29. Brown Spinal epidural and caudal anesthesia. In: Miller RD, ed. Miller's Anesthesia.7th ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2010:1611-1638.
  30. Healy TE, Knight PR, editors. Wylie Churchill-Davidson's A Practice of Anesthesia 7th Edition. CRC press; 2003 Oct 31:856-890.
Recommended Articles
Research Article
Psychological Disturbances and Quality of Life Among Obese Infertile Women in Amalapuram
...
Published: 14/02/2025
Download PDF
Research Article
Study of GATA3 Expression in Urothelial Cell Tumors
...
Published: 11/02/2025
Download PDF
Research Article
Correlation of Platelet Indices with Thrombocytosis: A Clinicopathological Study in a Tertiary Care Hospital
Published: 30/06/2023
Download PDF
Research Article
Fixation of pertrochanteric fracture with proximal femoral nail in adults
Published: 20/09/2018
Download PDF
Chat on WhatsApp
Copyright © EJCM Publisher. All Rights Reserved.