Density determination of local anaesthetic opioid mixtures for spinal anaesthesia

20Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: To measure the density of hyperbaric and isobaric local anaesthetics before and after addition of neuroaxial opioids to define a method for calculating any local anaesthetic/opioid mixture density based on individual component densities. Methods: Density was determined using a volumetric pycnometer (25.0281 ± 0.0013 ml). The density of local anaesthetics (bupivacaine, lidocaine), opioids (fentanyl, morphine) and multiple anaesthetic/opioid mixtures were measured in quadruplicate and expressed in g · ml-1, at 37°C (mean ± SD). Regression analysis was used to derive a formula for calculating the density of any anaesthetic/opioid mixture. Results: Individual components had the following densities (g · ml-1): bupivacaine 0.7596; 1.0252 ± 0.0001, lidocaine 5%; 1.0249 ± 0.0001, bupivacaine 0.5%; 0.9994 ± 0.0001, lidocaine 296; 1.0000 ± 0.0001,50 μg · ml-1 fentanyl; 0.9936 ± 0.0001, and 0.5 mg · ml-1 morphine; 1.0001 ± 0.0001. Using regression analysis, linear relationships were demonstrated between density (D) of anaesthetic/opioid mixture and the proportion of anaesthetic in the mixture (fractional volume of anaesthetic) (r = 0.9999, P < 0.001). The following formula was derived; Density(Modure) = (D(Local anaesthetic) -D(Opioid) x Fractional Volume Anaesthetic + D (Opioid) Comparison of calculated and measured densities for multiple clinically relevant anaesthetic/opioid mixtures showed a significant degree of correlation (r = 0.9996, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Density of spinal anaesthetic/opioid mixtures can be calculated from the component densities and the proportion of anaesthetic in the mixture.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hare, G. M. T., & Ngan, J. C. S. (1998). Density determination of local anaesthetic opioid mixtures for spinal anaesthesia. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia, 45(4), 341–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03012026

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