Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T06:02:00.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epidural anaesthesia with bupivacaine does not cause increased oedema in small gut anatomoses in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2005

A. Fedder ,
R. Dall ,
S. Laurberg  and
S. Å. Rodt
A. Fedder
Affiliation:
Aarhus University Hospital, Unit of Colorectal Surgery, Århus, Denmark Aarhus University Hospital, Department of Anaesthesiology, Århus, Denmark
R. Dall
Affiliation:
Aarhus University Hospital, Department of Anaesthesiology, Århus, Denmark
S. Laurberg
Affiliation:
Aarhus University Hospital, Unit of Colorectal Surgery, Århus, Denmark
S. Å. Rodt
Affiliation:
Aarhus University Hospital, Department of Anaesthesiology, Århus, Denmark
Get access

Abstract

Summary

Background and objective: Epidural analgesia is widely used for abdominal surgery due to the properties of ‘stress-free’ anaesthesia and superior pain control. Nevertheless, sympathomimetics are known to antagonize inflammation. The present study was performed to investigate if epidural local anaesthetics caused increased local oedema formation.

Methods: Thirty Dansk Landrace pigs were randomized into three groups: epidural bupivacaine, epidural morphine or intravenous (i.v.) fentanyl. All animals were anaesthetized with isoflurane and i.v. midazolam and received an identical fluid regimen. Six small bowel resections were performed over a 3-h period and during the following 3 h the anastomoses were resected. Primary end-points were water content in small bowel and mesentery samples before and after gut anastomosis, lymph flow and urine production.

Results: The water content in the small bowel samples was not changed by surgery or by the different anaesthetic protocols. In the mesenteric tissue, there was a highly significant increase in water content of the post-anastomotic samples compared to pre-anastomotic samples (P < 0.001) and a significant time treatment interaction was revealed (P < 0.05) suggesting an increase in oedema formation in the epidural local anaesthetic group. Lymph flow did not change during the experiments and there were no significant differences between the groups (P = 0.80). The mean total urine output was 44% higher in the epidural morphine group compared to the local anaesthetic group (P = 0.17).

Conclusions: Surgery did not increase gut wall water content, but acute oedema formation resulted in the peri-resectional mesenterial tissue, more prominently so in the bupivacaine group.

Keywords

ANAESTHESIA, EPIDURAL, bupivacaine, opioids, adverse effectsANASTOMOSIS SURGICAL, adverse effects, anastomotic breakdownOEDEMA, local tissue, intestine, mesenteryINFLAMMATIONSWINE
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 21 , Issue 11 , November 2004 , pp. 864 - 870
Copyright
2004 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Liu S, Carpenter RL, Neal JM. Epidural anesthesia and analgesia: their role in postoperative outcome. Anesthesiology 1995; 82: 1474–1506.Google Scholar
Rippe B, Grega GJ. Effects of isoprenaline and cooling on histamine induced changes of capillary permeability in the rat hindquarter vascular bed. Acta Physiol Scand 1978; 103: 252–262.Google Scholar
Marciniak DL, Dobbins DE, Maciejko JJ, Scott JB, Haddy FJ, Grega GJ. Antagonism of histamine edema formation by catecholamines. Am J Physiol 1978; 234: H180–H185.Google Scholar
Minnear FL, DeMichele MA, Leonhardt S, Andersen TT, Teitler M. Isoproterenol antagonizes endothelial permeability induced by thrombin and thrombin receptor peptide. J Appl Physiol 1993; 75: 1171–1179.Google Scholar
Tighe D, Moss R, Bennett D. Cell surface adrenergic receptor stimulation modifies the endothelial response to SIRS. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome. New Horiz 1996; 4: 426–442.Google Scholar
Steinhelper ME, Fisher RA, Revtyak GE, Hanahan DJ, Olson MS. Beta 2-adrenergic agonist regulation of immune aggregate- and platelet-activating factor-stimulated hepatic metabolism. J Biol Chem 1989; 264: 10976–10981.Google Scholar
Rullier E, Laurent C, Garrelon JL, Michel P, Saric J, Parneix M. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 1998; 85: 355–358.Google Scholar
Gaarden M, Jespersen TW, Hessov I, Hansen HV, Rodt SÅ. Weight-increase due to water retention after thoracal epidural blockade is significantly greater than that seen using lumbar epidural morphine as the sole supplement to balanced anaesthesia in colonic surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Suppl 1997; 41: 184.Google Scholar
Randall HT. Fluid, electrolyte, and acid–base balance. Surg Clin North Am 1976; 56: 1019–1058.Google Scholar
Molnar R, Pian-Smith MCM. Spinal, epidural, and caudal anesthesia. In: Hurford WE, Bailin MT, Davison JK, Haspel KL, Rosow C, eds. Clinical Anaesthesia Procedures of the Masachusetts General Hospital, 5th edn. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1998: 242–263.
Brown DL. Spinal, epidural, and caudal anesthesia. In: Miller RD, ed. Anesthesia, 5th edn. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone Inc., 2000: 1491–1521.
Aukland K, Reed RK. Interstitial–lymphatic mechanisms in the control of extracellular fluid volume. Physiol Rev 1993; 73: 1–78.Google Scholar
Mellander S, Johansson B. Control of resistance, exchange, and capacitance functions in the peripheral circulation. Pharmacol Rev 1968; 20: 117–196.Google Scholar
Holte K, Kehlet H. Prevention of postoperative ileus. Minerva Anesthesiol 2002; 68: 152–156.Google Scholar
Benoit JN, Zawieja DC. Gastrointestinal lymphatics. In: Johnson LR, ed. Physiology of the Gastrointestinal Tract, 3rd edn. New York: Raven Press, 1994: 1669–1691.
Adolphs J, Schmidt DK, Mousa SA, et al. Thoracic epidural anesthesia attenuates hemorrhage-induced impairment of intestinal perfusion in rats. Anesthesiology 2003; 99: 685–692.Google Scholar
Johansson K, Ahn H, Lindhagen J, Tryselius U. Effect of epidural anaesthesia on intestinal blood flow. Br J Surg 1988; 75: 73–76.Google Scholar
Holte K, Kehlet H. Epidural analgesia and risk of anastomotic leakage. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2001; 26: 111–117.Google Scholar
Kehlet H. Surgical stress: the role of pain and analgesia. Br J Anaesth 1989; 63: 189–195.Google Scholar
Brandstrup B, Tonnesen H, Beier-Holgersen R, et al. Effects of intravenous fluid restriction on postoperative complications: Comparison of two perioperative fluid regimens – a randomized assessor-blinded multicenter trial. Ann Surg 2003; 238: 641–648.Google Scholar
Holte K, Sharrock NE, Kehlet H. Pathophysiology and clinical implications of perioperative fluid excess. Br J Anaesth 2002; 89: 622–632.Google Scholar