Comparison of hypertonic saline (5%), isotonic saline and ringer's lactate solutions for fluid preloading before lumbar extradural anaesthesia

26Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

We have compared the haemodynamic effects of fluid preloading performed before lumbar extradural anaesthesia with isotonic saline (NS), 5% hy-pertonic saline (HS) and Ringer's lactate (RL) solutions in 30 ASA I patients undergoing minor orthopaedic surgery, allocated randomly to the three groups. All patients received an equal amount of sodium (2 mmol kg-1. After fluid preloading, lumber extradural anaesthesia was performed (2 % lignocaine 6 mg kg-1) and ephedrine was administered in order to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) > 80% of its control value. Both volume and duration of fluid preload were significantly less in group HS (760 (SD 25) ml, 8.8 (SD 2.9) min) than in the two other groups (NS: 903 (144) ml, 17.7 (3.3) min; RL: 932 (166) ml, 212 (6.0) min) (P < 0.05). The number of blocked segments and the total amount of ephedrine administered were similar in the three groups. Heart rate increased significantly in all groups immediately after the fluid preload and remained increased until the end the study (90 min). MAP was not affected by any fluid preload and its maximal decrease after lumbar extradural anaesthesia was similar in all groups. Infusion of 5% HS 2.3 ml kg-1 was tolerated well and produced a significant (? < 0.05) but moderate hypernatraemia lasting 90 min after the end of fluid preloading. We conclude that HS may be useful when rapid fluid preloading is desired, in situations where excess free water administration is not desired. (Br. J. Anaesth. 1992; 69: 461-464) © 1992 British Journal of Anaesthesia.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Veroli, P., & Benhamou, D. (1992). Comparison of hypertonic saline (5%), isotonic saline and ringer’s lactate solutions for fluid preloading before lumbar extradural anaesthesia. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 69(5), 461–464. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/69.5.461

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free