This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on Web of Science (10)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

F. PAUL ANSBRO, M.D.; ALBERT E. BLUNDELL, M.D.; ROBERT E. FURLONG, M.D.; JOHN W. PILLION, M.D.; BENSON BODELL, M.D.

AMA Arch Surg. 1959;78(1):75-78.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

We have made diligent efforts during the past 10 years to find an anesthetic solution which could be used with safety in clinical anesthesia. We were convinced of the value of epidural anesthesia mainly because, in contrast to spinal anesthesia, it was relatively free of neurological sequelae, e. g., headache. Our difficulty was in finding a solution for epidural use which would afford the same abdominal muscle relaxation as does spinal anesthesia and yet not prove toxic. This was a problem because the great vascularity of the epidural space makes absorption easy and the high concentration of the solution, as well as the vastly increased volume necessary in epidural block, rendered its inherent toxicity manifest on too many occasions. Our credo regarding a drug useful in local or regional anesthesia is summarized in Table 1.

With these principles in mind, we investigated procaine in 2% concentration and found that it . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Brooklyn

St. Catherine's Hospital.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication June 25, 1958.

Read before the Section on Anesthesiology at the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Medical Association, San Francisco, June 25, 1958.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?