Local infiltration anaesthesia with ropivacaine 0.5% for excision of benign naevi

Ropivacaine is a new type of long-acting local anaesthetic of less systemic toxicity than bupivacaine. The objective of this double-blind study was to compare the efficacy and safety of ropivacaine 0.5% and mepivacaine 1% for infiltration anaesthesia in dermatologic surgery. Sixty out-patients aged 18–65 years, scheduled for excision of a benign naevus on the back, were randomly assigned to infiltration anaesthesia with either ropivacaine or mepivacaine. Both agents had a fast onset, and provided reliable anaesthesia and painfree surgery which could be carried out without the use of vasoconstrictive adjuncts or diathermy. Ropivacaine resulted in a longer duration of analgesia than mepivacaine, and both treatments were well tolerated.     

A clinical comparison of equal concentration and volume of ropivacaine and bupivacaine for interscalene brachial plexus anesthesia and analgesia in shoulder surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the same volume and concentration of bupivacaine and ropivacaine for interscalene brachial plexus block anesthesia and postoperative analgesia in shoulder surgery. METHODS: Forty-four patients scheduled for elective shoulder surgery were prospectively randomized to receive in a double-blind fashion 30 mL of either 0.5% bupivacaine or ropivacaine for interscalene block. The block was prolonged after surgery by using a patient-controlled interscalene analgesia with 0.15% of either bupivacaine or ropivacaine. The mean onset times of surgical blocks were determined after interscalene block. Pain relief was regularly assessed by using a visual analog scale, side effects were noted, and the patients were asked to rate their satisfaction at the end of the study. RESULTS: Two patients with bupivacaine and 1 with ropivacaine failed to achieve surgical block and were excluded. The mean onset times of surgical blocks were 18 +/- 12 minutes with ropivacaine and 21 +/- 13 minutes with bupivacaine. The pain scores, total volume infused of local anesthetics, incremental dose requested and received, total rescue analgesic, and side effects were similar between the groups. Postoperative pain control was similarly effective and patient satisfaction was high in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the same volume and concentration of bupivacaine and ropivacaine (30 mL of 0.5%) for interscalene brachial plexus block anesthesia produce similar surgical block. When prolonging the block with a patient-controlled interscalene analgesia infusion, 0.15% bupivacaine or ropivacaine provide adequate pain relief, similar side effects, and high patient satisfaction after shoulder surgery.     

Levobupivacaine versus ropivacaine infiltration analgesia for mastopexy: a comparative study of 2 long-acting anesthetic drugs in infiltrative anesthesia for mastopexy

A prospective double-blind study was conducted to compare the analgesic properties of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine in a bilaterally symmetrical mastopexy model. Both of these 2 long-acting local anesthetic amides are associated with lower cardiac and central nervous system toxicity than racemic bupivacaine, a widely used agent for long-lasting perioperative analgesia in esthetic procedures. In this study, each of the 18 patients undergoing bilateral mastopexy under conscious sedation received preoperative infiltration with levobupivacaine in 1 breast and equal volume of ropivacaine in the other. Patients were requested to assess their pain separately in each side every 2 hours and for 12 hours postoperatively on a visual analog scale. Overall analgesia achieved up to 12 hours postoperatively was found to be statistically different between the 2 local anesthetic factors in favor of levobupivacaine. At 2 hours postoperatively, no difference was found between the 2 local anesthetic agents in terms of analgesic efficacy (P = 0.298). However, postoperative pain scores recorded after infiltration with levobupivacaine were significantly lower than pain scores for the ropivacaine-infiltrated sides (P<0.001) at all other timeframes. Both anesthetics provided satisfactory analgesia for at least 10 hours, but constantly low pain scores were recorded for levobupivacaine for 10 hours postoperatively, whereas for ropivacaine only for 6 hours. At 12 hours, 66% of patients needed oral analgesia for pain in the ropivacaine-infiltrated breast. It is concluded that levobupivacaine is more effective for local infiltrative analgesia in mastopexy than ropivacaine, providing longer-lasting postoperative analgesia.     

Ultrasound-guided genicular nerves block vs. local infiltration analgesia for total knee arthroplasty: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

Genicular nerves block is a promising technique to treat acute postoperative pain in total knee arthroplasty. Similar to surgeon-administered local infiltration analgesia, it targets sensory branches from the knee capsule, but through a selective ultrasound-guided injection that reduces local anaesthetic dose (150 ml ropivacaine 0.2% with local infiltration analgesia vs. 20 ml with genicular nerves block). This randomised non-inferiority trial compared the analgesic efficacy of genicular nerves block vs. local infiltration analgesia in the first 24 h following total knee arthroplasty. Sixty patients were randomly allocated to receive either ultrasound-guided block of five genicular nerves or local infiltration analgesia. The primary outcome was rest pain numeric rating scale (0–10) at 24 h. Secondary outcomes included pain numeric rating scale (rest and movement) and cumulative opioid consumption during the first 24 h. We analysed 29 patients in the genicular nerves block group and 30 in the local infiltration analgesia group. We found that the median difference (95%CI) in postoperative rest pain at 24 h (non-inferiority criteria, Δ = 1) was −1.0 (−2.0 to 1.0, p < 0.001). Median difference in cumulative opioid consumption was 0.0 mg (−3.0–5.0, p < 0.001) meeting the non-inferiority criteria, Δ = 23 mg. We conclude that genicular nerves block of five nerves provides non-inferior analgesia in the first 24 h following surgery compared with local infiltration analgesia, but with a considerable reduction in the local anaesthetic dose.     

Epidural ropivacaine – where are the benefits? A prospective,randomized, double‐blind trial in patients with retropubic prostatectomy

BACKGROUND: In comparison with bupivacaine, ropivacaine exhibits comparable anaesthetic effects but with less motor impairment and systemic toxicity. However, the analgesic potency may differ. For example, ropivacaine during obstetric epidural analgesia provides an approximately 40% lower analgesic potency than bupivacaine. Equal visual analogue pain scores require significantly higher dosages of ropivacaine, and general statements about a favourable benefit-risk profile relative to that of bupivacaine may therefore have limited clinical impact. We addressed this topic in a male pain model by evaluating the analgesic efficacy of epidural ropivacaine 0.2% vs. bupivacaine 0.125% after retropubic prostatectomy. METHODS: Forty patients scheduled for retropubic prostatectomy were randomly assigned to two groups (20 patients per group). In a double-blind prospective design, patient-controlled lumbar epidural analgesia was provided by ropivacaine 0.2% in the ropivacaine group and by bupivacaine 0.125% in the bupivacaine group. The primary endpoint was the total amount of local anaesthetic consumption. The secondary endpoints were the numeric rating scale scores for rest and dynamic pain and the degree of motor impairment. RESULTS: Ropivacaine consumption was 60% higher (mean +/- standard deviation, 1372.5 +/- 108.3 mg) than that of bupivacaine (852 +/- 75.2 mg) (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the numeric rating scale scores and motor impairment. CONCLUSIONS: In male patients, lumbar epidural administration of ropivacaine 0.2% after retropubic prostatectomy does not appear to provide benefits over bupivacaine 0.125%. Moreover, in view of the significantly higher drug requirements, general statements focusing on the favourable therapeutic index of ropivacaine may require critical analysis, at least during epidural administration.     

Comparative efficacy of ropivacaine and bupivacaine infiltrative analgesia in otoplasty

A prospective double-blind study was conducted to compare the anesthetic efficacy of ropivacaine and bupivacaine in a bilaterally symmetrical otoplasty model. Because ropivacaine has a significantly lower toxic potential than bupivacaine, it may be established as the anesthetic agent of choice for low-dose infiltration anesthesia in routine aesthetic facial operations. Each of the 24 adult patients undergoing bilateral otoplasty received infiltration with ropivacaine in 1 auricle and an equal volume of bupivacaine in the other. Patients were requested to assess their pain separately in each side at the times of infiltration, during cartilage scoring, and 2, 6, and 10 hours postoperatively on a visual analog scale. Intraoperative success rates were similar, and overall analgesia achieved at 2 hours, 6 hours, and 10 hours postoperatively was not found to be statistically different between ropivacaine and bupivacaine. The authors conclude that ropivacaine can be used as an effective alternative to bupivacaine in otoplasty.     

Postoperative analgesia by combined continuous infusion and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) following hip replacement: ropivacaine versus bupivacaine

BACKGROUND: Ropivacaine is a new local anaesthetic, which compared to bupivacaine is less toxic and shows greater sensory and motor block dissociation. We hypothesised that treatment of postoperative pain with a combined regimen of continuous epidural infusion and Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia (PCEA) using ropivacaine could have given better results compared with those we had obtained using bupivacaine. METHODS: Patients undergoing total hip replacement were randomly assigned to two groups. They received epidural analgesia for postoperative pain treatment using ropivacaine, 2 mg x ml(-1) or bupivacaine 2 mg x ml(-1). Both drugs were administered as a constant infusion of 6 ml x h(-1) supplemented by PCEA bolus doses of 2 ml. Patients in both groups received morphine intravenously on demand from a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device. An independent observer recorded pain scores, intensity of motor block and morphine consumption at regular intervals during the first 24 h after surgery. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were evaluated. Ropivacaine and bupivacaine, in similar amounts, provided similar results assessed as adequate to very good postoperative analgesia, whereas motor block was significantly more intense in patients treated with bupivacaine. CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar analgesic effects, epidural infusion of ropivacaine combined with PCEA provides higher patient satisfaction than equal doses of bupivacaine due to lack of motor block.     

The effect of 0.5 % ropivacaine on epidural blood flow

Twenty patients scheduled for elective abdominal surgery received epidural analgesia with 20 ml 0.5% ropivacaine or 0.5% bupivacaine. Epidural blood flow was measured by an epidural 133Xe clearance technique on the day before surgery (no local anaesthetic) and again 1 h before surgery, 30 min after injection of the local anaesthetic during continuous infusion (8 ml/h). Median initial blood flow was 5.0 ml/min and 6.0 ml/min per 100 g tissue in patients receiving ropivacaine and bupivacaine, respectively. After epidural bupivacaine, blood flow increased in 8 of 10 patients to 6.9 ml/min per 100 g tissue (P less than 0.05) in contrast to a decrease in 9 of 10 patients to 3.3 ml/min per 100 g tissue after ropivacaine (P less than 0.05), (P less than 0.01 between groups). The median level of sensory analgesia was T3.5 and T4.5 in the ropivacaine and bupivacaine group, respectively (P greater than 0.05). The demonstrated vasoconstrictor effect of epidural ropivacaine may influence the duration of its local anaesthetic effect.     

不同局部麻醉药硬膜外阻滞麻醉行隆乳术的效果

目的观察隆乳手术中不同局部麻醉药混合液行硬膜外阻滞的麻醉效果及并发症.方法 120例行乳房假体置入术患者分为4组,以T4～T5棘突间隙为硬膜外穿刺点,分别注入含1 %利多卡因及0.375 %罗哌卡因、0.25 %罗哌卡因、0.25 %布比卡因的混合液及单纯1.3 %利多卡因溶液,初量13 ml,观察麻醉效果及对血流动力学的影响和并发症.结果切皮均无疼痛,脉搏氧饱和度无明显变化,血压及心率轻度降低.1 %利多卡因加0.375 %罗哌卡因、0.25 %罗哌卡因或0.25 %布比卡因混合液组的阻滞麻醉效果较好,单纯1.3 %利多卡因组效果较差.65例(54 %)患者出现鼻塞,39例(33 %)麻醉后发生心动过缓,无组间差异.结论高位硬膜外阻滞麻醉可安全、有效地应用于隆乳房手术麻醉,1 %利多卡因与0.25 %罗哌卡因或布比卡因混合液不仅阻滞麻醉效果较好,对生理功能影响也较小.     

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia after abdominal surgery: ropivacaine versus bupivacaine.

In this randomized, double-blinded study we sought to assess the analgesic efficacy of ropivacaine and bupivacaine in combination with sufentanil and the efficacy of ropivacaine alone after major abdominal surgery. Sixty patients undergoing major abdominal surgery received standardized general anesthesia combined with epidural thoracic analgesia. They were allocated to one of three groups: the BS group received postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia with 0.125% bupivacaine plus 0.5 microg/mL sufentanil; the RS group received 0.125% ropivacaine plus 0.5 microg/mL sufentanil; and the R group received 0.2% ropivacaine, with the patient-controlled epidural analgesia device set at bolus 2-3 mL and background infusion 3-5 mL/h. Visual analog scale scores were significantly lower during coughing in the BS group compared with the RS and R groups and in the RS group compared with the R group. The BS group required significantly less local anesthetic (milligrams per day) during the first three postoperative days compared with the RS and R groups, and the RS group, significantly less than the R group. No major side effects were noted in any group. We conclude that, after major abdominal surgery, thoracic epidural analgesia was more effective with bupivacaine than with ropivacaine when these two local anesthetics are used in a mixture with sufentanil. Ropivacaine alone was less effective than ropivacaine in combination with sufentanil. IMPLICATIONS: After major abdominal surgery, thoracic epidural analgesia was more effective with 0.125% bupivacaine than with 0.125% ropivacaine when these two local anesthetics were used in a mixture with 0.5 microg/mL sufentanil. Ropivacaine 0.2% alone was less effective than 0.125% ropivacaine combined with sufentanil.     

A comparison of epidural analgesia with 0.125% ropivacaine with fentanyl versus 0.125% bupivacaine with fentanyl during labor

We previously found that the extent of an epidural motor block produced by 0.125% ropivacaine was clinically indistinguishable from 0.125% bupivacaine in laboring patients. By adding fentanyl to the 0. 125% ropivacaine and bupivacaine solutions in an attempt to reduce hourly local anesthetic requirements, we hypothesized that differences in motor block produced by the two drugs may become apparent. Fifty laboring women were randomized to receive either 0. 125% ropivacaine with fentanyl 2 microg/mL or an equivalent concentration of bupivacaine/fentanyl using patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with settings of: 6-mL/hr basal rate, 5-mL bolus, 10-min lockout, 30-mL/h dose limit. Analgesia, local anesthetic use, motor block, patient satisfaction, and side effects were assessed until the time of delivery. No differences in verbal pain scores, local anesthetic use, patient satisfaction, or side effects between groups were observed; however, patients administered ropivacaine/fentanyl developed significantly less motor block than patients administered bupivacaine/fentanyl. Ropivacaine 0.125% with fentanyl 2 microg/mL produces similar labor analgesia with significantly less motor block than an equivalent concentration of bupivacaine/fentanyl. Whether this statistical reduction in motor block improves clinical outcome or is applicable to anesthesia practices which do not use the PCEA technique remains to be determined. Implications: By using a patient-controlled epidural analgesia technique, ropivacaine 0.125% with fentanyl 2 microg/mL produces similar analgesia with significantly less motor block than a similar concentration of bupivacaine with fentanyl during labor. Whether this statistical reduction in motor block improves clinical outcome or is applicable to anesthesia practices which do not use the patient-controlled epidural analgesia technique remains to be determined.     

Clinical efficacy and pharmacokinetics of 1% ropivacaine and 0.75% bupivacaine in peribulbar anaesthesia for cataract surgery

Peribulbar anaesthesia with 1% ropivacaine and 0.75% bupivacaine, both with hyaluronidase, was assessed in a prospective, randomised, double-blind study of 100 patients undergoing cataract surgery. Pharmacokinetic data were obtained from 22 subjects. Akinesia of the globe developed slightly more rapidly in the ropivacaine group, but this difference was only statistically significant at 2 min after injection of the local anaesthetic. Lid akinesia was significantly more complete in the ropivacaine group. There were no differences between the groups with respect to peri-operative analgesia or duration of akinesia. The dose-adjusted maximum concentration of ropivacaine was approximately twice that of bupivacaine with significantly higher values of the area under the concentration-time curves. No drug-related adverse effects were observed. We conclude that there are no clinically significant differences in the quality of the sensory and motor block between 1% ropivacaine and 0.75% bupivacaine when used for peribulbar anaesthesia.     

Effect of sufentanil on minimum local analgesic concentrations of epidural bupivacaine, ropivacaine and levobupivacaine in nullipara in early labour

BACKGROUND: The aim was to assess the effect of epidural sufentanil on relative analgesic potencies of epidural bupivacaine, ropivacaine and levobupivacaine by determining the minimum local analgesic concentrations during labour. METHODS: In a randomised, double-blind study, 171 parturients were allocated to one of six groups receiving a 10-mL bolus of bupivacaine, ropivacaine or levobupivacaine alone or with sufentanil 0.75 microg/mL. The concentration of local anaesthetic was determined by the response of the previous parturient using up-down sequential allocation starting at a concentration of 0.13% wt/vol with a testing interval of 0.01%. Effective analgesia was defined as a visual analogue pain score < or = 15/100 mm within 30 min and lasting for 30 min. Median effective concentrations were estimated and two-sided P < 0.05 was significant. RESULTS: Local anaesthetic concentration, use of sufentanil and local anaesthetic drug were independent significant predictors of effective and ineffective analgesia. Bupivacaine was significantly more potent than levobupivacaine and ropivacaine. The relative potency ratios without sufentanil of 0.77:0.83:1.00 were reduced to 0.36:0.38:1.00 by the addition of sufentanil. The major factor influencing local anaesthetic requirements was the addition of sufentanil, which reduced overall requirements by a factor of 4.2 (95% CI 3.6-4.8); this effect was proportionately more enhanced for bupivacaine. CONCLUSIONS: Local anaesthetic requirements for bupivacaine, levobupivacaine and ropivacaine follow an analgesic potency hierarchy. Any potency differences are small when compared to the effect of sufentanil, which resulted in a four-fold reduction in local anaesthetic requirements. Sufentanil may also enhance the potency differences between bupivacaine and the two S-enantiomer agents.     

罗哌卡因在临床麻醉中的应用进展

随着对布比卡因致命性心脏毒性作用的认识，新型局部麻醉药罗哌卡因在临床上有越来越多的使用趋势。本文就罗哌卡因的理化特性及其临床应用进展作一综述。     

Day Case Breast Augmentation Under Paravertebral Blockade: A Prospective Study of 100 Consecutive Patients

Background An increasing trend toward day surgery management requires plastic surgeons not only to be cognizant of block techniques, but also to assess their safety and efficacy objectively. Paravertebral block offers benefits by enhancing surgical anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of paravertebral block for day patients undergoing submuscular breast augmentation. The primary outcome measure was the rate of block failure. The secondary outcome measures included recovery room stay, pain management, and block complications. On the basis of a literature review and audit results, the study objective also aimed to propose safe guidelines for ambulatory paravertebral block patients undergoing breast surgery. Methods A total of 100 patients undergoing 172 single-level paravertebral blocks (72 bilateral blocks) and sedation for submuscular breast augmentation were studied prospectively. A single-injection paravertebral block was performed at the T4 level using a loss of resistance technique. Surgical, anesthetic, and recovery room details were recorded. Analyses were performed to determine the association between recovery room times, body mass index, pain scores, and requirements for opioids, antiemetics, and vasopressors. Results The findings showed that 87% of the blocks were successful for surgical anesthesia and 94% of the blocks were successful for postoperative analgesia. The pain score for 74% of the subjects was 3 or less. Antiemetics were given for 10% of the patients with significantly longer recovery room times. Vasopressors were required for 6% of the patients. A surgically caused pneumothorax resulted in the only unplanned admission. Conclusion The study findings suggest that paravertebral block is a safe and effective technique for day case submuscular breast augmentation.     

A comparative study of 0.25% ropivacaine and 0.25% bupivacaine for brachial plexus block.

The present study compares the effectiveness of 0.25% ropivacaine and 0.25% bupivacaine in 44 patients receiving a subclavian perivascular brachial plexus block for upper extremity surgery. The patients were assigned to two equal groups in this randomized, double-blind study; one group received ropivacaine 0.25% (112.5 mg) and the other, bupivacaine 0.25% (112.5 mg), both without epinephrine. Onset times for analgesia and anesthesia in each of the C-5 through T-1 brachial plexus dermatomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. The mean onset time for analgesia ranged from 11.2 to 20.2 min, and the mean onset time for anesthesia ranged from 23.3 to 48.2 min. The onset of motor block differed only with respect to paresis in the hand, with bupivacaine demonstrating a shorter onset time than ropivacaine. The duration of sensory and motor block also was not significantly different between the two groups. The mean duration of analgesia ranged from 9.2 to 13.0 h, and the mean duration of anesthesia ranged from 5.0 to 10.2 h. Both groups required supplementation with peripheral nerve blocks or general anesthesia in a large number of cases, with 9 of the 22 patients in the bupivacaine group and 8 of the 22 patients in the ropivacaine group requiring supplementation to allow surgery to begin. In view of the frequent need for supplementation noted with both 0.25% ropivacaine and 0.25% bupivacaine, we do not recommend using the 0.25% concentrations of these local anesthetics to provide brachial plexus block.     

局部浸润罗哌卡因联合静脉镇痛对全膝关节置换术后镇痛及早期康复的影响

目的评估伤口单次局部浸润罗哌卡因联合静脉自控镇痛对全膝关节置换(TKA)术后镇痛的效果及术后早期膝关节康复训练的影响。方法选择腰麻下行膝关节置换手术的患者50例,根据镇痛方式分为两组,罗哌卡因组(25例):术毕切口浸润0.25%罗哌卡因20 ml,术后行静脉自控镇痛(PCIA);对照组(25例):术毕切口浸润生理盐水20 ml,术后行PCIA。采用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评估不同时间点的镇痛效果,不同时间评定术后康复训练依从性、膝关节主动活动度(ROM)、膝关节功能。结果术后4、6、8、12 h VAS评分:罗哌卡因组分别为1.28分±1.03分、2.17分±1.67分、2.13分±1.76分、2.38分±0.34分,对照组分别为2.75分±1.09分、3.25分±1.29分、4.50分±1.51分、4.62分±1.60分,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.01)。术后24、48 h VAS评分:罗哌卡因组分别为3.20分±1.21分、3.17分±0.84分,对照组分别为3.28分±1.21分、3.56分±1.19分,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。罗哌卡因组与对照组术后康复训练依从性、膝关节ROM及HSS评分比较差异均有统计学意义(P0.01)。结论应用罗哌卡因局部浸润联合PCIA用于TKA术后镇痛是一种安全有效的镇痛方法,有利于膝关节术后功能的恢复,具有较好的临床应用价值。     

Use of ropivacaine for peridural postoperative analgesia

OBJECTIVES: To describe pharmacology and toxicology of ropivacaine. To assess the clinical efficacy of ropivacaine when used for postoperative epidural analgesia and to provide recommendations for clinical practice. DATA SOURCES: Search in the Medline data base of original articles in French and English published since 1995, using the following key words: ropivacaine, postoperative analgesia, epidural, caudal block. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective randomised studies in adults and children were selected. Letters to editors and editorials were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Articles have been analyzed: to determine the dose of ropivacaine required for postoperative epidural analgesia, to assess the benefits of combination of epidural ropivacaine and additives (opioids or other), to compare epidural ropivacaine and bupivacaine and to assess the use of ropivacaine via caudal route for paediatric postoperative analgesia. DATA SYNTHESIS: 20 mg h-1 of ropivacaine is required to provide effective analgesia. This dose produces a motor block in a significant number of patients. Combination with an opioid allows for a reduction in ropivacaine requirement and subsequently in the incidence of motor blockade. In adults, equipotency ratio of ropivacaine and bupivacaine varies between 1.5/1 and 1/1 depending upon the concentration used. At equipotent doses, early postoperative mobilisation is facilitated with ropivacaine. In case of paediatric caudal analgesia, this ratio is close to 1. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural ropivacaine combined with opioid provide good postoperative pain relief. Reduction in the incidence of motor blockade and safe toxicological profile make this local anaesthetic a suitable alternative of bupivacaine for postoperative epidural analgesia.     

Levobupivacaine for epidural anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia in hip surgery

Background and objectives

The aim of this randomized, single blind phase IIIb study was to evaluate the efficacy of 0.5% levobupivacaine versus 0.5% bupivacaine and 0.75% ropivacaine administered as epidural anesthesia and 0.125% levobupivacaine versus 0.125% bupivacaine and 0.2% ropivacaine for postoperative analgesia. The study was designed to test the equivalence of the overall profile of levobupivacaine against bupivacaine and ropivacaine. In addition, parameters of clinical safety were assessed.

Methods

A total of 88 patients undergoing hip surgery at 12 German academic hospitals were randomly assigned to 3 different treatment groups. Criteria for drug evaluation were the required epidural volume and time until onset and offset of sensory and motor block, the quality of postoperative analgesia using a pain visual analogue scale and verbal rating scale, as well as the need for rescue medication based on statistical non-inferiority testing.

Results

With respect to onset and offset of sensory and motor blockade, 0.5% levobupivacaine, 0.5% bupivacaine and 0.75% ropivacaine showed clinically significant equivalent profiles for all primary study endpoints. However, the levobupivacaine group showed a higher demand for intraoperative anesthesia. Postoperative analgesia request and pain scales did not differ significantly between groups, but comparatively lower total drug volumes were required in the bupivacaine group. No relevant differences between the trial groups concerning safety parameters were observed.

Conclusions

The efficacy of epidural levobupivacaine for hip surgery and postoperative analgesia is equivalent and shows a comparable clinical profile to bupivacaine and 50–60% higher concentrated ropivacaine. The results of this equivalence study confirm suggestions derived from previous comparative studies.     

Comparison of bupivacaine 0.2% and ropivacaine 0.2% combined with fentanyl for epidural analgesia during labour

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Recent clinical studies comparing ropivacaine 0.25% with bupivacaine 0.25% reported not only comparable analgesia, but also comparable motor block for epidural analgesia during labour. An opioid can be combined with local anaesthetic to reduce the incidence of side-effects and to improve analgesia for the relief of labour pain. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects of epidural bupivacaine 0.2% compared with ropivacaine 0.2% combined with fentanyl for the initiation and maintenance of analgesia during labour and delivery. METHODS: Sixty labouring nulliparous women were randomly allocated to receive either bupivacaine 0.2% with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) (B/F), or ropivacaine 0.2% with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) (R/F). For the initiation of epidural analgesia, 8 mL of the study solution was administered. Supplemental analgesia was obtained with 4 mL of the study solution according to parturients' needs when their pain was > or = 4 on a visual analogue scale. Analgesia, hourly local anaesthetic use, motor block, patient satisfaction and side-effects between groups were evaluated during labour and at delivery. RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled and 53 completed the study. No differences in verbal pain scores, hourly local anaesthetic use or patient satisfaction between groups were observed. However, motor block was observed in 10 patients in the B/F group whereas only two patients had motor block in the R/F group (P < 0.05). The incidence of instrumental delivery was also higher in the B/F group than in the R/F group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that epidural bupivacaine 0.2% and ropivacaine 0.2% combined with fentanyl produced equivalent analgesia for pain relief during labour and delivery. It is concluded that ropivacaine 0.2% combined with fentanyl 2 microg mL(-1) provided effective analgesia with significantly less motor block and need for an instrumental delivery than a bupivacaine/fentanyl combination at the same concentrations during labour and delivery.