Low-dose @entity1342 or XXXX walking spinal anesthesia in ambulatory inguinal herniorrhaphy.

@entity1 @entity1342 @entity1343 @entity86 @entity3575
PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to compare the equipotent doses of @entity1342 and @entity1343 for walk-out criteria and the characteristics of spinal anesthesia in inguinal herniorrhaphy surgery. METHODS: Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia was performed. Adult @entity1 were randomly allocated to receive 5  mg 0.5% @entity1342 plus 25   g @entity3575 (group RF, n  =  25) or 3.75  mg 0.75% @entity1343 plus 25   g @entity3575 (group LF, n  =  25). Each solution was hypobaric, and the same volume, 3  ml, was administered. Sensory and motor block characteristics, hemodynamic changes, side effects, number of @entity1 having ability to stand and walk at the end of the operation, time to first analgesic requirement, time to urination, time to getting out of bed (ambulation), and time to home discharge were determined. RESULTS: Sensory block onset time and time to reach the T6 dermatome were significantly shorter in group LF, whereas time to the two-segment regression and time to first analgesic requirement were significantly shorter in group RF. All @entity1 in group LF were Bromage 0. Time to home discharge was shorter in group LF, but this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: We suggest that both local anesthetics can be used in walking spinal technique. @entity1343 may be an alternative local anesthetic for walking spinal anesthesia as it provides minimum motor block and a long duration of @entity86 , even if its use is not associated with a shorter home discharge time.
