Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 139743

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2023 | Month : May | Volume : 17 | Issue : 5 | Page : UC13 - UC17 Full Version

Effect of Low Dose Intravenous Magnesium Sulphate on Sensory Regression Time in Patients undergoing Spinal Anaesthesia- A Randomised Placebo-controlled Double-blinded Study


Published: May 1, 2023 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2023/63360.17807
Babita Lahkar, Vidyasagar V Reddy, Vikramjit Baruah, Priyam Saikia

1. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta, Assam, India. 2. Anaesthesiologist, Department of Anaesthesiology, Tihu Community Health Centre, Nalbari, Assam, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Jorhat Medical College and Hospital, Jorhat, Assam, India. 4. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati, Assam, India.

Correspondence Address :
Babita Lahkar,
C/o Dr. Tridib Medhia, 3rd Floor, House No. 1, Bishnu Rabha Path, South Sarania, Ulubari, Guwahati-781007, Assam, India.
E-mail: babitalahkar123@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Adjuvants like intravenous (i.v.) Magnesium Sulphate (MgSO4) are used to improve the efficacy and duration of spinal anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia. However, it is unclear whether this prolongation of analgesia duration is an independent effect of MgSO4 or if it is due to the increased duration of spinal anaesthesia itself.

Aim: To evaluate the effect of intraoperative i.v. low dose MgSO4 on two-segment regression time of sensory block, regression time up to L2 dermatome from the highest level of sensory block and postoperative analgesic requirement.

Materials and Methods: This randomised placebo-controlled blinded study was conducted in the Department of Anaesthesia, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta, Assam, India from September 2020 to August 2021. A total of 60 patients, satisfying American Society of Anaesthesiology (ASA) physical status I and status II, aged between 40-70 years, and undergoing femur fracture surgery under spinal anaesthesia were enrolled in the present study. Patients in the magnesium group (Group M, n=30) received MgSO4 5 mg/kg infusion, and control group (Group C, n=30) received at the same volume of saline during operation. Unpaired t-test was used to test the significance in normally distributed continuous variable and Mann-Whitney U test was used to test the significance of the difference between the quantitative variables. The software Predictive Analytics Software (PASW) 18.0 was used for statistical analysis and the graphs were generated using the Microsoft Excel 2007. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.

Results: There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to patient characteristics (age, weight, and height). The mean time for two segment regression in the group M was prolonged by approximately 13 minutes compared to group C (104.96±11.37 minutes versus 91.2±11.86 minutes, respectively, p<0.001). The mean regression time up to L2 dermatome in the group M was prolonged by 15 minutes compared to the group C. (171.23 minutes versus 156.43 minutes, respectively, p=0.0003). The total consumption of tramadol in the group M was significantly lesser than the control group (192.5±58.03 mg and 245.0±43.74 mg, respectively, p=0.0002).

Conclusion: An i.v. infusion of 5 mg/kg MgSO4 prolongs two segment regression time upto L2 dermatome and reduces postoperative opioid consumption without any complication in patients undergoing femur fracture surgery under spinal anaesthesia.

Keywords

Analgesics, Bupivacaine, Femoral fractures, Injections, Postoperative pain

Pain is a personal experience that should always be respected. Verbal description is only one of several modes of expression; inability to communicate does not negate the possibility of pain (1),(2). By definition, “Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience that is related to actual or potential tissue damage, or articulated in such terms” (2).

Postoperative pain is experienced by a vast majority of patients who undergo surgical procedures and is a major concern because it affects postoperative outcome of the patient. Adequate and appropriate pain control plays an essential role in facilitating recover, both physiologically and psychologically. Thus it leads to shorter hospital stays, lower hospital expenses, and more patient satisfaction. Postoperative pain control may be achieved by variety of mechanisms (3). They may include the use of pharmacological agents and interventional techniques (3). Various drugs like midazolam, ketamine, Magnesium Sulphate (MgSO4) have been used to prolong postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing spinal anaesthesia. Intravenous (i.v.) use of MgSO4 along with regional anaesthesia and neuraxial anaesthesia prolongs duration of postoperative analgesia (4),(5),(6).

MgSO4 has been used patients undergoing spinal anaesthesia and most of the studies reports it analgesic properties [7-12]. It is unclear whether this prolongation of duration of analgesia is an independent analgesic effect of MgSO4 of because of increased duration of spinal anaesthesia itself (7),(8),(9),(10),(11),(12). In some studies, increased two segment regression time and regression of spinal block up to L2 dermatome were observed, but they were secondary outcomes [8-12]. Moreover, these studies have used MgSO4 dose ranging from 20-50 mg/kg (7),(8),(9),(10),(11).

Literature has also shown decreased opioid requirement using a much lower dose of MgSO4 (12). However, the effect of MgSO4 on the duration of spinal anaesthesia has not been properly evaluated. Thus, it is not known whether such doses influence the duration of spinal anaesthesia and contribute to prolongation of postoperative analgesia. Thus, it was intended to evaluate the effect of i.v. 5 mg/kg on duration of spinal anaesthesia. Such low dose has not been used in studies that evaluated systemic analgesic properties of MgSO4.

It was hypothesised that low dose of i.v. MgSO4 infusion increases two segment regression time of sensory block and the regression time up to L2 dermatome in patients undergoing femur fracture surgery under spinal anaesthesia. The present study, also aimed to study the effect on postoperative requirement of opioids.

Material and Methods

This randomised placebo-controlled blinded study was conducted in the Department of Anaesthesia, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta, Assam, India, from September 2020 to August 2021. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC no FAAMC&H/IEC_PG/498/2020/10573) and written informed consent was obtained from all the patients. The procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible institutional ethics committee on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975 that was revised in 2013.

Sample size calculation: The formula used for sample size calculation is as below (13):

n=(Zα/2+Zβ)2 *2*σ2/d2

where Zα/2 is the critical value of the normal distribution at α/2 (for a confidence level of 95%, α is 0.05 and the critical value is 1.96), Zβ is the critical value of the Normal distribution at β (for a power of 90%, β is 0.1 and the critical value is 1.28), σ2 is the population variance, and d is the difference we would like to detect.

According to the study by Fanelli G et al., the two segment regression time was 80±25 minutes (14). We presumed to detect a difference of 30 minutes between both the groups. Thus, substituting σ with 25 and d with 30.

n=(1.96+1.28)2*2*σ2/d2=10.49*2*252/302=10.49*2*625/900 =10.49*2*0.6944=14.568

Thus, to detect a difference of 30 minutes in two segment regression regression time with confidence interval of 95% and power of 90, 15 patients were required in each group. Considering the recommendation of central limit theorem and possible dropout, the authors intended to include 30 patients in each group (15).

Inclusion criteria: The ASA physical status I and status II patients, aged between 40 and 70 years, undergoing femur fracture surgery under spinal anaesthesia were included in the present study (16).

Exclusion criteria: Patients with severe cardiovascular, renal and hepatic dysfunction, neuromuscular diseases, using calcium channel blockers and with contraindications for spinal anaesthesia were excluded (Table/Fig 1).

Study Procedure

The patients were randomly allocated into two groups, M (Case) or C (Placebo) of 30 each by block randomisation, with six patients in each block; a total of 10 such blocks (www.sealedenvelope.com). Concealment of allocation was done by opaque sealed envelope technique. The patients were not informed about their group allocation. On the day of operation, a designated Operation Theatre (OT) technician opened the sealed envelopes, once the patient was shifted to the OT. Accordingly the patients were assigned to their respective groups. The designated OT technician did not take any further part in the study. The anaesthesiologist administering the drug was not aware of the group allocation. After placement of standard monitors including continuous electrocardiogram, pulse oximetry, and non-invasive blood pressure measurements, an 18 Gauge (G) i.v. cannula was placed and patients were premedicated with i.v. midazolam 0.03 mg/kg. Spinal anaesthesia was performed through L3-4 or L4-5 interspace in sitting position. After dural puncture with a 25 G Quincke needle, 0.3 mg/kg of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% solution was injected into the subarachnoid space over 15 seconds. The patients were turned to supine position and maintained to achieve the estimated level of the block.

Following this injection, 5 mg/kg MgSO4 in 250 mL 0.9% saline solution over 15 minutes were given in patients of group M and then patients were allowed for surgery. In control group (group C, n=30) 250 mL of 0.9% saline infusion was administered over 15 minutes during operation in a double-blind randomised manner. Rest of the management was similar to group M. The level of sensory block was evaluated by the loss of pinprick sensation (20-gauge hypodermic needle). Motor blockade was scored using a modified Bromage scale (1=inability to raise extended leg, able to bend knee; 2=inability to bend knee, can flex ankle; and 3=no movement) in the non affected limb (17). Readiness to surgery was defined as the presence of adequate motor block (Bromage score ≥2) and loss of pinprick sensation at T10. The inability to reach a sensory block at T10 within 30 minutes after spinal injection was considered to be a technical block failure and the patient was converted to general anaesthesia.

Clinically relevant hypotension was defined as a decrease in systolic arterial blood pressure by 20% from baseline values (18). It was initially treated with a rapid i.v. infusion of 200 mL lactated Ringer’s solution; if this proven to be ineffective, an i.v. bolus of 5 mg ephedrine was given. Clinically relevant bradycardia was defined as heart rate decreases to less than 45 bpm, and it was treated with 0.6 mg i.v. atropine (19). Rescue analgesia with tramadol 75 mg i.v. was available when VAS scores were ≥4. Nausea and vomiting were treated with 4 mg ondansetron intravenously. Age, weight, height, ASA physical status, surgical time, systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial blood pressures, heart rates were noted.

The outcome measures included pain scores (VAS values) two segment regression time, regression time up to L2 dermatome, total opioid consumption and side-effects were recorded for each patient by an investigator. Haemodynamic variables were recorded baseline 0, 15, 30, 60 and 90 minutes after spinal anaesthesia. Pain scores were evaluated using a 0–10 cm VAS (0=no pain, 10=worst pain imaginable) at the postoperative periods (at 0, 1st h, 2nd h, 4th h, 6th h, 12th h and 24th h).

Statistical Analysis

The normality of distribution was evaluated by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Continuous variables with normal distribution were analysed with unpaired t-test. For variables with non parametric distribution, Mann-Whitney U test was used to test the significance of the difference between the quantitative variables between both the groups. The software PASW 18.0 has been used to carry out the analysis and the graphs have been generated using the Microsoft Excel 2007. A p-value of less than 0.05 has been considered to be significant in all cases.

Results

The demographic profile and duration of surgeries are depicted in (Table/Fig 2). There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to patient characteristic (Table/Fig 2). All the sixty patients completed the study. All of the patients were operated for femur fracture surgery under spinal anaesthesia.

The mean time taken for two segment regression of sensory block in the group receiving MgSO4 was 104.96±11.37 minutes, as compared to 91.2±11.86 minutes in the placebo group (Table/Fig 3).

Hypothesis testing shows that two segment regression time in the MgSO4 group was significantly prolonged when compared to the control (p<0.001). The details are available in (Table/Fig 3). The mean time taken for regression up to L2 dermatome from the highest level of sensory block was 171.23±12.82 minutes in the group administered MgSO4 and 156.43±16.54 minutes in the control group (Table/Fig 3). This duration was significantly prolonged in the MgSO4 group as compared to the placebo group as shown in the (Table/Fig 3). The total consumption of tramadol in first 24 hours after operation was more in group C (Table/Fig 3) and the difference is statistically significant (p=0.0002).

Two patients in group M and two patients in group C developed nausea, and two patients in group M and one patient in group C experienced vomiting during surgery. Two cases in each group developed headache and two patients in group M and one patient in group C developed dizziness. There were no other side-effects observed. In accordance with the study protocol, all events were treated. Mean arterial blood pressures and heart rates were similar in the two groups [Table/Fig-4,5]. The VAS score of pain was similar till four hours in both the groups. Beyond four hours, the pain was statistically significantly lower in group M (Table/Fig 6).

Discussion

Perioperative i.v. MgSO4 has been studied and considered as an efficacious modality of postoperative analgesia in various studies (10),(20),(21). In a study by Shah PN and Dhengle Y patients in the study group were given 250 mg of MgSO4 intravenously followed by 500 mg MgSO4 at the rate of 20 mL per hour; same volume of normal saline as bolus and infusion was given in the control group (10). The duration of both sensory and motor blockade in the magnesium group was prolonged in comparison to the control group, and this prolongation was statistically significant (p=0.001 for both the parameters). The main finding of the present study suggested improved postoperative analgesia in the MgSO4 group with delayed and decreased need of postoperative analgesic; and increased duration of sensory and motor blockade.

In the study by Agrawal A et al., patients in the study group received MgSO4 as infusion in the dose of 50 mg/kg/hour over 15 minutes and 15 mg/kg/hour until the end of the surgery and patients in the control group received 15 mL of normal saline over 15 minutes followed by 100 mL/hour until the end of surgery (8). The study found that the use of i.v. MgSO4 with spinal anaesthesia decreases postoperative pain and analgesic consumption (p=0.001). The time taken for regression of sensory blockade was extended and need for initial rescue analgesia was also delayed (p=0.001).

Kahraman F and Eroglu A studied the effect of i.v. infusion of MgSO4 during spinal anaesthesia on duration of spinal block and postoperative pain (9). Patients in the study group (group M) received MgSO4 65 mg/kg infusion in 250 mL 5% dextrose at 3.5 mL per minute rate and patients in the control group (group C) received the same volume of saline. The authors concluded that MgSO4 i.v. infusion prolongs the spinal sensorial block duration and regression time of sensory block (p<0.01). They also observed a decrease of pain VAS score till four hours after surgery (p<0.01) which is in concurrence with the present study.

In the present study, it was found that the mean time for two segment regression in the group receiving MgSO4 was prolonged by around 13 minutes as compared to those receiving placebo p<0.05. The mean regression time up to L2 dermatome in the MgSO4 group was prolonged by 15 minutes as compared to the control group p<0.05. The authors feel that a prolongation of two segment regressions by an average of 13 minutes and prolongation of regression time up to L2 dermatome by 15 minutes in the group receiving magnesium is of clinical significance.

The rescue analgesic used in the present study was Inj. Tramadol intramuscularly, in a dose of 1.5 mg/kg (with a maximum of 75 mg at once). Analgesia was given whenever the patient demanded or the VAS score was ≥4. The total consumption of Tramadol in the group receiving MgSO4 was significantly lesser than the control group (192.5±58.03 mg and 245.0±43.74 mg, respectively, p=0.0002). The observations made in the present study are similar to the study done by Kayalha H et al., in which they evaluated the effect of i.v. MgSO4 on postoperative opioid requirement (12). Similar to the present study, Kayalha H et al., had also used i.v. MgSO4 in a dose of 5 mg/kg and the group receiving MgSO4 showed statistically significant reduction in postoperative opioid requirement (group M, 20 mg vs group C, 25 mg, p=0.001). Pain score was also reduced postoperatively in the group receiving group M as compared group C. The endurance of spinal anaesthesia was increased in group M, compared to group C (p<0.001).

Pastore A et al., concluded from their study that i.v. infusion of MgSO4 during spinal anaesthesia improves the quality of analgesia and reduces the postoperative consumption of analgesics (11). This property is probably related to the competitive antagonism of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor to the blockade of calcium channel, both involved in the mechanism of central sensitisation of pain. The study conducted by Gao P-f et al., concluded that adjuvant MgSO4 infusion is beneficial to reduce intraoperative fentanyl requirement and postoperative pain without cardiovascular side-effects (20).

Farouk I et al., conducted a study to find out the analgesic and haemodynamic effects of i.v. infusion of MgSO4 versus dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing bilateral inguinal hernia surgeries under spinal anaesthesia. They reported that i.v. infusion of either dexmedetomidine or MgSO4 with spinal anaesthesia improves the quality of spinal anaesthesia. Along with it, they also prolong the duration of postoperative analgesia and decrease the 24 hour postoperative morphine consumption. These findings are in accordance with the present study (21).

Above mentioned studies have employed MgSO4 in a dose ranging from 10-50 mg/kg and has found that decreased opioid requirement but in some studies their outcome has shown that prolongation of spinal analgesia [5,8-12,22]. This is the reason, why the present study was done where regression of spinal anaesthesia was primary outcome and increased duration of spinal anaesthesia was observed. If the data of the previous studies is looked into, it can be seen that the prolongation of postoperative analgesia is far more than the prolongation of duration of spinal anaesthesia. Thus, MgSO4 may have another mechanism of action, where despite prolongation of spinal anaesthesia, it gives analgesia to patient. A study conducted by Kiran S et al., in patients undergoing inguinal surgery found that preoperative administration of i.v. MgSO4 at the dose of 50 mg/kg produces significant reduction in postoperative pain (23).

It is not clear whether decreased opioid requirement was because of intrinsic analgesic activity of MgSO4 or due to its effect of increased duration of spinal analgesia. The present study observes that it increases the duration of spinal anaesthesia. The finding of the present study also suggests that it has analgesic action that is maintained beyond what is provided by the spinal anaesthesia.

Limitation(s)

In the present study, serum magnesium levels were not assessed before and after the surgery. Hence, a correlation between the serum magnesium levels and its effect on duration of blockade and duration of analgesia could not be established.

Conclusion

The present study concluded that i.v. use of MgSO4 as an adjuvant along with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine in spinal anaesthesia for patients undergoing femur fracture surgeries at a dose of 5 mg/kg bolus, over 15 minutes prolongs two segment regression time and regression time up to L2 dermatome, thus, accepting the hypothesis. It was also observed that postoperative opioid consumption was reduced. Thus, low dose i.v. MgSO4 can be used to prolong the duration of spinal anaesthesia and duration of postoperative analgesia.

References

1.
Malik NA. Revised definition of pain by ‘International Association for the Study of Pain’: Concepts, challenges and compromises. Anaesth Pain Intensive Care. 2020;24(5):481-83. [crossref]
2.
Practice Guidelines for Acute Pain Management in the Perioperative Setting: An Updated Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Acute Pain Management. Anesthesiology. 2012;116(2):248-73. [crossref][PubMed]
3.
Horn R, Kramer J. Postoperative Pain Control. [Updated 2022 Sep 19]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK544298/.
4.
Swain A, Nag DS, Sahu S, Samaddar DP. Adjuvants to local anesthetics: Current understanding and future trends. World J Clin Cases. 2017;5(8):307-23. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Hwang JY, Na HS, Jeon YT, Ro YJ, Kim CS, Do SH. I.V. infusion of magnesium sulphate during spinal anaesthesia improves postoperative analgesia. Br J Anaesth. 2010;104(1):89-93. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Kumar M, Dayal N, Rautela RS, Sethi AK. Effect of intravenous magnesium sulphate on postoperative pain following spinal anesthesia. A randomised double blind controlled study. Middle East J Anaesthesiol. 2013;22(3):251-56.
7.
Zhong HY, Zhang WP. Effect of intravenous magnesium sulfate on bupivacaine spinal anesthesia in preeclamptic patients. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. 2018;108:1289-93. [crossref][PubMed]
8.
Agrawal A, Agrawal S, Payal YS. Effect of continuous magnesium sulfate infusion on spinal block characteristics: A prospective study. Saudi J Anaesth. 2014;8:78-82. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Kahraman F, Eroglu A. The effect of intravenous magnesium sulfate infusion on sensory spinal block and postoperative pain score in abdominal hysterectomy. Bio Med Res Int. 2014;2014:236024. [crossref][PubMed]
10.
Shah PN, Dhengle Y. Magnesium sulfate for postoperative analgesia after surgery under spinal anesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2016;54(2):62-64. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Pastore A, Lanna M, Lombardo N, Policastro C, Iacovazzo C. Intravenous infusion of magnesium sulphate during subarachnoid anaesthesia in hip surgery and its effect on postoperative analgesia: Our experience. Translational Medicine. 2013;5(6):18-21.
12.
Kayalha H, Yaghoubi S, Yazdi Z, Izadpanahi P. Effect of intervenous magnesium sulfate on decreasing opioid requirement after surgery of the lower limb fracture by spinal anesthesia. Int J Prev Med. 2019;10:57. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Saravanan R, Venkatraman R, Karthika U. Comparison of ultrasound-guided modified BRILMA block with subcostal transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy- A randomized controlled trial. Local Reg Anesth. 2021;14:109-16. Doi: 10.2147/LRA.S316320. [crossref][PubMed]
14.
Fanelli G, Borghi B, Casati A, Bertini L, Montebugnoli M, Torri G. Unilateral Bupivacaine spinal anesthesia for outpatient knee arthroscopy. Italian study group on unilateral spinal anesthesia. Can Journal of Anesthesia. 2000;47(8):746-51. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Distributions of sampling statistics. Introduction to Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists. Fifth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Elsevier. 2014:218-19.
16.
Horvath B, Kloesel B, Todd MM, Cole DJ, Prielipp RC. The evolution, current value, and future of the american society of anesthesiologists physical status classification system. Anesthesiology. 2021;135(5):904-19. [crossref][PubMed]
17.
Gautier PE, De Kock M, Van Steenberge A, Poth N, Lahaye-Goffart B, Fanard L, et al. Intrathecal ropivacaine for ambulatory surgery. Anesthesiology. 1999;91(5):1239-45. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
Gregory A, Stapelfeldt WH, Khanna AK, Smischney NJ, Boero IJ, Chen Q, et al. Intraoperative hypotension is associated with adverse clinical outcomes after noncardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2021;132(6):1654-65. [crossref][PubMed]
19.
Ritter MA, Rohde A, Heuschmann PU, Dziewas R, Stypmann J, Nabavi DG, et al. Heart rate monitoring on the stroke unit. What does heart beat tell about prognosis. An observational study. BMC Neurology. 2011;11:01-08. [crossref][PubMed]
20.
Gao PF, Lin JY, Wang S, Zhang YF, Wang GQ, Xu Q, et al. Antinociceptive effects of magnesium sulfate for monitored anesthesia care during hysteroscopy: A randomised controlled study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020;20:240 . [crossref][PubMed]
21.
Farouk I, Hassan MM, Fetouh AM, Elgayed AEA, Eldin MH, Abdelhamid BM. Analgesic and hemodynamic effects of intravenous infusion of magnesium sulphate versus dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing bilateral inguinal hernial surgeries under spinal anesthesia: A randomised controlled study. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2021;71(5):489-97.[crossref][PubMed]
22.
Peng YN, Sung FC, Huang ML, Lin CL, Kao CH. The use of intravenous magnesium sulfate on postoperative analgesia in orthopedic surgery: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(50):e13583. [crossref][PubMed]
23.
Kiran S, Gupta R, Verma D. Evaluation of a single-dose of intravenous magnesium sulphate for prevention of postoperative pain after inguinal surgery. Indian J Anaesth. 2011;55(1):31-35.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2023/63360.17807

Date of Submission: Feb 09, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Mar 14, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Apr 21, 2023
Date of Publishing: May 01, 2023

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Feb 15, 2023
• Manual Googling: Mar 23, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Apr 18, 2023 (19%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com