Research Article

Comparison of Fentanyl and Nalbuphine as an Adjuvant to Bupivacaine for Spinal Anesthesia in Lower Limb Surgeries

Abstract

Background: Opioids commonly used as adjuvant anaesthetics during spinal anesthesia, are favored technique for lower limb surgeries. Nalbuphine is an opioid adjuvant that acts as antagonist at μ-receptors and agonist at k-receptors that work reasonably potent analgesia. In this study we compare the efficacy of epidural Fentanyl with bupivacaine versus Epidural Nalbuphine with Bupivacaine for post-operative pain relief in lower limb surgeries.
Methods: Altogether 80 patients of lower limb surgeries were randomly allocated into two groups. 40 patients in Group I (Inj. 0.5% Bupivacaine (H) 2.5ml + Inj. Fentanyl 25mcg (0.5ml) and 40 patients in Group II (Inj. 0.5% Bupivacaine (H) 2.5ml+ Inj. Nalbuphine 5mg (0.5ml). Age of patients ranged from 18-65 years of age and male:female ratio in the present study was 1: 0.5. Patients in both the above groups were comparable on age, gender, anthropometric variables, and baseline hemodynamic variables.
Results: In the study the mean age (36.30±14.10) of group II was comparatively more than the group I (33.88±9.42) while the mean weight (61.80±11.33) of group II was also comparatively more than group I mean weight (53.80±15.59). And the mean value of duration of surgery for the group I was (112.93±12.22) while it was (110.63±10.26) for group II. A significant difference was found in weight. The intergroup comparison of level of motor blockade where in group I the level of motor blockade was (65.0%) at 2 min (B/S-1) while in group II level of blockade (70.0%) at 2 min (B/S-1) after that from 8 min to 130 min it was (100%). The level of sensory blockade of group I (72.5%) at 2 min while it was (72.5%) at 6 min after that it was NA from 8 min to 130 min and in the group II level of sensory blockade (50.0%) at 2 min and (50.0%) at 8 min after that it was (100%) from 10 min to 130 min. During Intergroup Comparison of VAS significant differences was found at 30 min and 480 min.
Conclusion: Nalbuphine when compared to Fentanyl is almost safe and hemodynamically stable drug that can be used as an adjuvant in combined spinal epidural anesthesia with similar safety profile as for Fentanyl.

[1] Biswas BN, Rudra A, Bose BK, Nath S, Chakrabarty S, Bhattacharjee S. Intrathecal fentanyl with hyperbaric bupivacaine improves analgesia during cesarean delivery and in early post operative period. Indian J Anaesth. 2002; 46(6):469-72.
[2] Bindra TK, Kumar P, Jindal G. Postoperative analgesia with intrathecal nalbuphine versus intrathecal fentanyl in cesarean section. Anesth Essays Res. 2018; 12(2): 561-565.
[3] Mukherjee A, Pal A, Agrawal J, Mehrotra A, Dawar N. Intrathecal nalbuphine as an adjuvant to subarachnoid block: What is the most effective dose? Anesth Essays Res. 2011; 5(2):171-5.
[4] Culebras X, Gaggero G, Zatloukal J, Kern C, Marti RA. Advantages of intrathecal nalbuphine, compared with intrathecal morphine, after cesarean delivery: An evaluation of postoperative analgesia and adverse effects. Anesth Analg. 2000; 91(3):601-5.
[5] Shakooh S, Bhosle P. Intrathecal nalbuphine: An effective adjuvant for post operative analgesia. 2014; 40(14.09):46-90.
[6] Singh J, Agarwal A, Vatal A. Intrathecal Nalbuphine an effective Adjuvant for Postoperative Analgesia (A comparative study with Fentanyl). Int J Contemp Med Res; 2017; 4(1):39-42.
[7] Prabhakaraiah UN, Narayanappa AB, Gurulingaswamy S, Kempegowda K, Vijaynagar KA, Hanumantharayappa NB, et al. “Comparison of nalbuphine hydrochloride and fentanyl as an adjuvant to bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia in lower abdominal surgeries:” A randomized, double-blind study. Anesth Essays Res. 2017; 11(4):859-863.
[8] Bajwa SJ, Arora V, Kaur J, Singh A, Parmar SS. Comparative evaluation of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl for epidural analgesia in lower limb orthopedic surgeries. Saudi J Anaesth. 2011; 5(4):365-70.
[9] Kelly AM. The minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale pain score does not differ with severity of pain. Emerg Med J. 2001; 18(3):205-7.
[10] Naaz S, Shukla U, Srivastava S, Ozair E, Asghar A. A comparative study of analgesic effect of intrathecal nalbuphine and fentanyl as adjuvant in lower limb orthopaedic surgery. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017; 11(7):UC25-28.
[11] Manuar MB, Majumdar S, Das A, Hajra BK, Dutta S, Mukherjee D, et al. Pain relief after Arthroscopic Knee Surgery: A comparison of intra-articular ropivacaine, fentanyl, and dexmedetomidine: A prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled study. Saudi J Anaesth. 2014; 8(2):233-7.
[12] Bindra TK, Kumar P, Jindal G. Postoperative analgesia with intrathecal nalbuphine versus intrathecal fentanyl in cesarean section: A double- blind randomized comparative study. Anesth Essays Res. 2018; 12(2):561-5.
[13] Tiwari AK, Tomar GS, Agrawal J. Intrathecal bupivicaine in comparison with combination of nalbuphine and bupivicaine for subarachnoid block: A randomised prospective double blind clinical study. Am J Ther. 2013; 20(6):592-5
[14] Chatrath V, Attri JP, Bala A, Khetarpal R, Ahuja D, Kaur S. Epidural nalbuphine for postoperative analgesia in orthopedic surgery. Anesth Essays Res. 2015; 9(3):326-30.
[15] Verma D, Naithani U, Jain DC, et al. Postoperative analgesic efficacy of intrathecal tramadol versus nalbuphine added to bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for lower limb orthopedic surgery. J Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences. 2013; 2(33):6196-206.
Files
IssueVol 8 No 2 (2022): Spring QRcode
SectionResearch Article(s)
DOI https://doi.org/10.18502/aacc.v8i2.9148
Keywords
Fentanyl hemodynamics nalbuphine spinal anesthesia

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Mehdi I, Ahmad M, Dubey M, Ahmad D, Singh S, Tanweeruddin M. Comparison of Fentanyl and Nalbuphine as an Adjuvant to Bupivacaine for Spinal Anesthesia in Lower Limb Surgeries. Arch Anesth & Crit Care. 2022;8(2):98-104.