Tourniquet pain during spinal anesthesia: a comparison of plain solutions of tetracaine and bupivacaine

The incidence of tourniquet pain was evaluated in 40 patients having orthopedic surgery of the lower extremities during spinal anesthesia using 15 mg of a plain solution of either 0.5% tetracaine or 0.5% bupivacaine. The drugs were administered in a randomized fashion, and measurement of the levels of sensory anesthesia to pinprick and motor blockade as well as the occurrence of tourniquet pain were made by an independent blinded observer. The onset and maximum cephalad spread of sensory anesthesia and the onset and degree of motor block were similar in both groups of patients. However, the duration of sensory anesthesia was significantly longer in patients in whom tetracaine was used. The incidence of tourniquet pain was significantly greater in patients given tetracaine (60%) than in patients given bupivacaine (25%). The occurrence of tourniquet pain was not related to the level of sensory anesthesia, because patients in the tetracaine group had a higher level of sensory anesthesia (mean T6) than did patients in the bupivacaine group (mean T10) at the onset of tourniquet pain. It is speculated that during spinal anesthesia both A and C fibers (mediating fast and slow pain, respectively) are initially equally inhibited. However, as the concentration of local anesthetic in the cerebrospinal fluid declines, C fibers may become unblocked earlier with tetracaine than A fibers, resulting in tourniquet pain in the presence of an otherwise satisfactory spinal anesthetic.     

Comparison of ropivacaine 0.2% and lidocaine 0.5% for intravenous regional anesthesia in volunteers.

A longer acting local anesthetic such as ropivacaine may offer advantages over lidocaine for IV regional anesthesia (IVRA). The objective of this investigation was to determine whether the use of ropivacaine improves the quality and duration of IVRA. In a randomized, double cross-over design, 10 volunteers received lidocaine 0.5% or ropivacaine 0.2% for IVRA of the upper extremity on two separate days with a standard double-cuff technique. Sensation to pinprick, response to tetanic stimuli, and tourniquet pain were assessed on a 0-10 verbal numeric score scale at 5-min intervals throughout the period of tourniquet inflation. Motor function was evaluated by grip strength. After release of the second (distal) cuff, pinprick sensation, motor strength, and systemic side effects were evaluated at 3, 10, and 30 min. No significant differences were observed for onset times of anesthesia and times to proximal (38 +/- 3 and 36 +/- 3 min) or distal (34 +/- 13 and 36 +/- 13 min) tourniquet release after the administration of ropivacaine and lidocaine, respectively. However, postdeflation hypoalgesia and motor blockade were prolonged with ropivacaine, and postdeflation light-headedness, tinnitus, and drowsiness were more prominent with lidocaine. We conclude that ropivacaine may be an alternative to lidocaine for IVRA. It may result in prolonged analgesia and fewer side effects after tourniquet release. IMPLICATIONS: In this study, volunteers received lidocaine 0.5% or ropivacaine 0.2% for IV regional anesthesia on two study days. Ropivacaine and lidocaine provided similar surgical conditions. However, after release of the distal tourniquet, prolonged sensory blockade and fewer central nervous system side effects were observed with ropivacaine.     

Clinical Effects and Maternal and Fetal Plasma Concentrations of Epidural Ropivacaine Versus Bupivacaine for Cesarean Section

Background: Ropivacaine is a new amide local anesthetic structurally similar to bupivacaine and mepivacaine. Previous studies showed that ropivacaine has a similar clinical effect as bupivacaine with regard to sensory anesthesia and slightly less motor blockade than bupivacaine. Ropivacaine appears to be less cardiotoxic and arrhythmogenic than bupivacaine. The clinical and pharmacokinetic effects of 0.5% ropivacaine (5 mg/ml) versus 0.5% bupivacaine (5 mg/ml) when used epidurally for elective cesarean section were investigated.

Methods: Using a randomized, double-blind study design, 60 ASA physical status 1 or 2 term parturients presenting for elective cesarean section received either 0.5% bupivacaine (150 mg) or 0.5% ropivacaine (150 mg) epidurally in appropriate fractionated doses over a 10-min period. Onset, duration, and regression of sensory and motor blockade were noted until complete resolution was observed. Quality of intraoperative anesthesia and abdominal wall muscle relaxation were noted. Maternal plasma concentrations of local anesthetic were determined before anesthetic administration and 5, 10, 20, 30, and 60 min and 2, 3, 6, 8, 12, and 24 h after drug injection in 20 subjects. Umbilical cord blood was obtained at time of delivery for acid-base values and determination of the free and total plasma concentration of local anesthetic. Neonates also were examined for neurobehavioral assessments by Scanlon's and Neurologic and Adaptive Capacity Scores at 2 and 24 h after delivery.

Results: All patients received satisfactory anesthesia for operation. The onset, duration, and regression of sensory blockade were similar for both groups. Onset of degree 1 and 2 motor blockade was faster, and duration of degree 1 motor block was longer in the group receiving bupivacaine. Hemodynamic sequelae were similar between groups. All neonates had 5-min Apgar scores of 7 or greater and normal acid-base values and neurobehavioral assessments. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed that the Cmax was similar for both drugs (1.3 plus/minus 0.09 for ropivacaine and 1.1 plus/minus 0.09 micro gram/ml for bupivacaine). The T1/2 of the terminal decline in plasma concentration was shorter for ropivacaine versus bupivacaine (5.2 plus/minus 0.60 versus 10.9 plus/minus 1.08 h, respectively; P < 0.01). The free (i.e., unbound) concentrations of ropivacaine were approximately twice those of bupivacaine in both maternal and neonatal blood at the time of delivery. The ratio of umbilical vein to maternal vein concentration of unbound drug was 0.72 for ropivacaine and 0.69 for bupivacaine.     

0.75% and 0.5% ropivacaine for axillary brachial plexus block: a clinical comparison with 0.5% bupivacaine

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although ropivacaine has been extensively studied for epidural anesthesia, very few reports exist on brachial plexus block. We therefore decided to investigate the clinical features of axillary brachial plexus anesthesia with two different concentrations of ropivacaine (0.5% and 0.75%) and to compare the results with those obtained with 0.5% bupivacaine. METHODS: Three groups of patients were randomized and prospectively studied. They received, in a double-blind fashion, 32 mL of the local anesthetic solution into the midaxilla, by a nerve-stimulator technique. Onset time in each of the stimulated nerves was recorded both for the sensory and motor block. Peak time (ready to surgery), rate of supplemental blocks, need for intraoperative opioids, duration of sensory and motor block, postoperative analgesic requirements, and patient satisfaction were also recorded. RESULTS: The rate of complete sensory and motor block observed with both ropivacaine groups was higher at 10, 15, and 20 minutes postinjection (P < .001). The mean peak time was shorter with ropivacaine than with bupivacaine (R50 = 16.37 minutes, R75 = 14.7 minutes, B = 22.3 minutes, P < .05). The quality of the anesthesia was higher with ropivacaine, as measured by the intraoperative needs for opioids and the overall patient's satisfaction (P < .05). No significant differences were noted with all the other studied parameters. CONCLUSION: Ropivacaine showed advantages over bupivacaine for axillary brachial plexus block. Because no statistical differences were found between the two ropivacaine groups, we therefore conclude that 0.75% does not add benefit and that 0.5% ropivacaine should be used to perform axillary brachial plexus blocks.     

Skin temperature during sympathetic block: a clinical comparison of bupivacaine 0.5% and ropivacaine 0.5% or 0.75%

Measurement of skin temperature can be used as an indicator of sympathetic blockade induced by neuraxial anaesthesia. The aim of the study was to test the skin temperature response to epidural administration of bupivacaine and different concentrations of ropivacaine. Forty-eight ASA class I-II patients undergoing herniorraphy were enrolled into a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Patients were randomly allocated to receive epidural anaesthesia with a single dose of 18 ml of bupivacaine 0.5% (n=16); ropivacaine 0.5% (n=16), or ropivacaine 0.75% (n=16). A temperature probe was positioned on the skin of the thigh and skin temperature registered before epidural anaesthesia, every 10 minutes for the first hour after the epidural injection and every hour for the following four hours. Sensory blockade was assessed by pinprick and motor blockade using the Bromage scale. No significant difference was observed in sensory or motor blockade. A skin temperature rise of 1 to 1.8 degrees C compared with basal values was observed in all patients within the first hour. Temperature returned to basal values within four hours in the ropivacaine 0.5% group, within five hours in the ropivacaine 0.75% group, and remained 1 degrees C higher after five hours in the bupivacaine 0.5% group (P<0.01). The duration of sympathetic block is significantly shorter with ropivacaine than with bupivacaine.     

Fentanyl in 2% mepivacaine compared with fentanyl in 0.5% bupivacaine: two parallel controlled double blind studies

The efficacy of epidural mepivacaine and bupivacaine, combined with fentanyl to enhance blockade, was compared in two parallel controlled, double-blind clinical trials. Patients in the studies (n = 91) were scheduled for orthopedic surgery of the legs and a tourniquet was used in all cases. Those patients receiving mepivacaine attended day surgery only, whereas patients receiving bupivacaine were hospitalised. Epidural puncture was performed with a Tuohy needle at the L3-4 level in the lateral decubitus position. Levels of sensory and motor blockade were assessed; adverse reactions and pain during surgery were recorded. There were four groups of patients: 1) 26 received 2% mepivacaine with placebo; 2) 26 received 2% mepivacaine with 0.1 mg fentanyl; 3) 19 received 0.5% bupivacaine with placebo and 4) 20 patients received 0.5% bupivacaine with 0.1 mg fentanyl. The levels of the sensory blockade was comparable in all groups. The degree of motor-blockade was more intense in the mepivacaine groups, but the blockade by mepivacaine lasted shorter. Addition of fentanyl did not change the sensory and motor blockade. Intraoperative pain was reported by: 7 patients in the mepivacaine/placebo group; 4 patients in the mepivacaine/fentanyl group; 4 patients in the bupivacaine/placebo group; and by one patient in the bupivacaine/fentanyl group. These results indicate that fentanyl enhances the quality of epidural blockade when combined with either mepivacaine or bupivacaine.     

Interscalene brachial plexus anesthesia with either 0.5% ropivacaine or 0.5% bupivacaine

BACKGROUND: To compare intra- and postoperative clinical properties of interscalene brachial plexus block performed with either 0.5% ropivacaine or 0.5% bupivacaine. METHODS: Experimental design: prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Setting: in patient at the University Hospital, Department of Orthopedic Surgery. Patients: 30 ASA physical status I-II patients scheduled for elective shoulder surgery. Interventions: interscalene brachial plexus block was performed using the multiple injection technique and a nerve stimulator by injecting 20 ml of either 0.5% ropivacaine (n = 15) or 0.5% bupivacaine (n = 15). Postoperative analgesia consisted of 100 mg intravenous ketoprofen, if required. A blind observer evaluated hemodynamic variables as well as sensory and motor blocks from the end of injection to achieve a surgical anesthesia (readiness for surgery: loss of pinprick sensation from C4 to C7 with the inability to elevate the operated limb against gravity). The time lasting from block placement to first requirement for postoperative pain medication was also recorded. RESULTS: No differences in anthropometric parameters and hemodynamic variables were observed throughout the study, and no signs of central nervous system (CNS) and cardiovascular toxicity, or other untoward events were reported in any patients. Readiness for surgery was obtained after 28 +/- 15 min with 0.5% bupivacaine and 22 +/- 8 min after 0.5% ropivacaine (p = NS). No differences in postoperative pain relief was observed between the two groups (11.1 +/- 5 hrs after 0.5% ropivacaine and 10.9 +/- 3.9 hrs after 0.5% bupivacaine, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that 0.5% ropivacaine has clinical properties similar to those of 0.5% bupivacaine, when used for interscalene brachial plexus block, providing similarly long duration in postoperative pain relief. Compared with bupivacaine, ropivacaine has the further advantage of a lower potential for central nervous system and cardiovascular toxicity.     

A comparison of epidural levobupivacaine 0.5% with or without epinephrine for lumbar spine surgery

Levobupivacaine, the S(-) isomer of bupivacaine, is less cardiotoxic than racemic bupivacaine. In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study of epidural anesthesia, we compared the onset, extent, and duration of sensory and motor blockade produced by plain 0.5% levobupivacaine (15 mL, 75 mg) with that of 0.5% levobupivacaine with the addition of 1:400,000 or 1:200,000 epinephrine in 117 patients undergoing elective spine surgery. The time to onset of adequate sensory block (T10 dermatome) was similar in all groups (12.4 +/- 6.6 min for plain levobupivacaine, 13.9 +/- 7.9 min for levobupivacaine with 1:400,000 epinephrine, and 12.7 +/- 4.9 min for levobupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine), with an average peak block height of T5. Time to complete regression of sensory blockade was also similar between groups (357 +/- 119 min for plain levobupivacaine, 378 +/- 98 min for levobupivacaine with 1:400,000 epinephrine, and 348 +/- 80 min for levobupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine). Peak serum levobupivacaine levels were reduced in each of the epinephrine-containing groups. We conclude that 0.5% levobupivacaine with or without 1:200,000 or 1:400,000 epinephrine produced effective epidural anesthesia in patients having lumbar spine surgery. Epinephrine 1:400,000 is as effective as 1:200,000 in reducing the resultant serum levobupivacaine levels after epidural anesthesia.     

A comparison of epidural ropivacaine 0.75% and bupivacaine 0.5% with fentanyl for elective caesarean section

BACKGROUND: Early studies suggested that ropivacaine had clinical advantages over bupivacaine with respect to cardiotoxicity and motor block, and that it was suitable for epidural caesarean section. This study was set up to compare epidural 0.75% ropivacaine with a popular bupivacaine/fentanyl mixture for elective caesarean section. METHODS: Eighty women having elective caesarean section under epidural anaesthesia were randomly allocated to receive 20 mL of either 0.75% ropivacaine or 0.5% bupivacaine plus fentanyl 100 microg. Supplementation with 2% plain lidocaine was used where necessary. Times were recorded for onset of sensory block, density and duration of motor block, and the need for supplementation. RESULTS: There was no difference between the groups in the time (mean [SD]) to achieve sensory blockade to cold to T4 (ropivacaine 15.8 [5.6] min, bupivacaine/fentanyl 18.7 [9.1] min, P=0.13) or to S1 (ropivacaine 18.3 [4.6] min, bupivacaine/fentanyl 17.4 [7.6] min, P=0.59), or in the need for supplementation. However, ropivacaine produced a motor block that was denser (median Bromage score ropivacaine 3, bupivacaine/fentanyl 1.5, P=0.0041), and of longer duration (ropivacaine 237 [84] min, bupivacaine/fentanyl 144 [76] min, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that epidural 0.75% ropivacaine without opioid may be used as an alternative to bupivacaine 0.5% with fentanyl for elective caesarean section, but it does not induce anaesthesia any faster and may result in a denser, more prolonged, motor block.     

Comparison of ropivacaine 0.2% and 0.25% with lidocaine 0.5% for intravenous regional anesthesia

Study ObjectiveTo compare the anesthetic effects of two different concentrations and doses of ropivacaine (0.2% and 0.25%) with those of a conventional dose of lidocaine 0.5%.DesignProspective, randomized, double-blinded, clinical investigation.SettingLarge metropolitan university hospital.Patients66 adult ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing forearm and hand surgery.InterventionsPatients were randomly allocated to three groups to receive intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA). Study groups were: ropivacaine 0.2% (Group I, n = 22), ropivacaine 0.25% (Group II, n = 22), and lidocaine 0.5% (Group III, n = 22).MeasurementsTourniquet tolerance times and regression of sensory analgesia were noted. Verbal numerical pain scores (VNS), cumulative analgesic consumption, and side effects were recorded during surgery and postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Time to first pain medication intake and number of patients receiving analgesics in the PACU were recorded.Main ResultsAdditional tolerance times for the distal tourniquet were significantly higher in the ropivacaine 0.25% group than the other two groups. Regression of sensory anesthesia was fastest in the lidocaine group. During the PACU stay, VNSs were significantly lower in the first 20 minutes in the ropivacaine groups than the lidocaine group. Time to first intake of pain medication in the PACU was soonest in the lidocaine group. The number of patients given analgesics in the PACU was highest in the lidocaine group. The number of patients taking > two tablets of tramadol was significantly lowest in the ropivacaine 0.25% group. No serious side effects were observed in any study group.ConclusionLonger tolerance times for the distal tourniquet, prolonged analgesia after tourniquet release, and lower analgesic requirements postoperatively make ropivacaine 0.2% and 0.25% an alternative to lidocaine for IVRA.     

Ropivacaine 0.2% and Lidocaine 0.5% for Intravenous Regional Anesthesia in Outpatient Surgery

Background: A longer-acting local anesthetic agent, such as ropivacaine, may offer advantages over lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia. The objectives of this study were to evaluate whether the findings of volunteer investigations with intravenous regional anesthesia with ropivacaine (which have shown prolonged analgesia after release of the tourniquet) translates into improved pain control after surgery.

Methods: With Human Investigation Committee approval and a double-blind study design, 20 healthy patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II classification who were scheduled to undergo forearm and hand surgery were randomly assigned to administration of 40 ml of either 0.2% ropivacaine or 0.5% lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia. Evidence of central nervous system side effects, such as lightheadedness, tinnitus, and metallic taste, as well as cardiac arrhythmias, were evaluated and treated (if necessary) after local anesthetic administration, before and during surgery, and after release of the tourniquet until discharge from the postanesthesia care unit. Regression of sensory anesthesia in the nerve distributions of the forearm and hand was recorded. Verbal numerical pain scores were monitored and quantified until the patients were discharged to home from the postanesthesia care unit. Patient pain scores, side effect profiles, time to first oral intake, and total amount of oral analgesics were recorded 24 h postoperatively.

Results: Intravenous regional anesthesia with 0.2% ropivacaine and 0.5% lidocaine provided equivalent levels of surgical anesthesia. After release of the tourniquet, the first evidence for return of sensation in the distribution of the five peripheral nerves occurred later in the ropivacaine group (median, 20 min; range, 15-40 min) than in the lidocaine group (median, 1 min; range, 1-25 min). Verbal numerical pain scores were significantly lower at the time of admission, whereas during the remainder of the postanesthesia care unit stay and later at home, the difference in verbal numerical pain scores between the two groups was no longer statistically significant.     

Sensory blockade after thoracic paravertebral injection of ropivacaine or bupivacaine

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: No clinical trials comparing the characteristics of sensory blockade caused by various local anaesthetics in thoracic paravertebral blockade have been published. The aim of this prospective study was a clinical assessment of sensory blockade after paravertebral injection of ropivacaine or bupivacaine in patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy. METHODS: Seventy ASA I-II patients were randomized to receive a single injection of ropivacaine 0.5% (n = 35) or bupivacaine 0.5% (n = 35) at the T4 level. General anaesthesia with propofol and fentanyl was provided during the procedure and patients were not intubated. The following parameters were analysed: duration and dynamics of the sensory blockade and the patient's and surgeon's assessment. RESULTS: Both ropivacaine and bupivacaine provided a similar level of analgesia. Ropivacaine was characterized by more rapid onset - after only 5 min 53% of patients in this group had the extent of sensory blockade wide enough to perform modified radical mastectomy in comparison to only 20% after bupivacaine (P 9 segments blocked) was noted more often in the ropivacaine group (88% vs. 65%, P < 0.05), lasted longer and appeared to be wider than sensory blockade produced by bupivacaine. Regression of sensory blockade was initially similar, but after 24 h sensory blockade in the ropivacaine group still had a potential to provide analgesia for modified radical mastectomy in 81% of patients in comparison to only 50% of such patients in the bupivacaine group (P < 0.05). Degree of postoperative pain, performance of the cardiovascular system, consumption of medications and complications were all similar between the study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both agents provide satisfactory conditions for mastectomy, but ropivacaine seems to be superior to bupivacaine for thoracic paravertebral blockade during breast cancer surgery.     

Ropivacaine 0.2% and lidocaine 0.5% for intravenous regional anesthesia in outpatient surgery

BACKGROUND: A longer-acting local anesthetic agent, such as ropivacaine, may offer advantages over lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia. The objectives of this study were to evaluate whether the findings of volunteer investigations with intravenous regional anesthesia with ropivacaine (which have shown prolonged analgesia after release of the tourniquet) translates into improved pain control after surgery. METHODS: With Human Investigation Committee approval and a double-blind study design, 20 healthy patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II classification who were scheduled to undergo forearm and hand surgery were randomly assigned to administration of 40 ml of either 0.2% ropivacaine or 0.5% lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia. Evidence of central nervous system side effects, such as lightheadedness, tinnitus, and metallic taste, as well as cardiac arrhythmias, were evaluated and treated (if necessary) after local anesthetic administration, before and during surgery, and after release of the tourniquet until discharge from the postanesthesia care unit. Regression of sensory anesthesia in the nerve distributions of the forearm and hand was recorded. Verbal numerical pain scores were monitored and quantified until the patients were discharged to home from the postanesthesia care unit. Patient pain scores, side effect profiles, time to first oral intake, and total amount of oral analgesics were recorded 24 h postoperatively. RESULTS: Intravenous regional anesthesia with 0.2% ropivacaine and 0.5% lidocaine provided equivalent levels of surgical anesthesia. After release of the tourniquet, the first evidence for return of sensation in the distribution of the five peripheral nerves occurred later in the ropivacaine group (median, 20 min; range, 15-40 min) than in the lidocaine group (median, 1 min; range, 1-25 min). Verbal numerical pain scores were significantly lower at the time of admission, whereas during the remainder of the postanesthesia care unit stay and later at home, the difference in verbal numerical pain scores between the two groups was no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Ropivacaine 0.2% may be an alternative to 0.5% lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia in the outpatient surgical setting. Longer-lasting analgesia in the immediate postoperative period may be due to a more profound and prolonged tissue binding effect of ropivacaine.     

The influence of baricity on differential blockade with 0.5% bupivacaine spinal anesthesia

We evaluated the influence of baricity on differential blockade during spinal anesthesia using isobaric or hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine. Forty ASA-PS I-II patients scheduled for elective surgery (orthopedic, lower abdominal and urologic) were divided into two groups; group H, using hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine, and group I, using isobaric 0.5% bupivacaine. Spinal anesthesia was performed in lateral decubitus position, using a 25-gauge Quincke needle at L2-3 interspace, and 0.5% bupivacaine 2.0 ml was injected for 10 seconds. Patients were turned to supine position soon after the spinal anesthesia and the block levels were examined every 5 min for 30 min. Sympathetic blockade was detected by observer's hand, the loss of cold sensation by alcohol sponge and the loss of pain sensation by pinprick. Complete motor blockade was detected by modified Bromage scale. Significant higher sensory blockade and large number of complete motor block were observed in group H. Differential blockade between sympathetic and sensory was significant and lasted 30 min in group I, but lasted only 15 min in group H.     

Onset of epidural blockade after plain or alkalinized 0.5% bupivacaine.

This double-blind study investigated the effect of adding 1.4% bicarbonate to 0.5% bupivacaine on onset time of sensory and motor blockade after epidural administration. Forty patients were randomly divided into one of two groups. Group 1 received 20 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine (pH, 5.58 +/- 0.12) and group 2 received 20 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine + 0.6 mL of 1.4% bicarbonate (pH, 6.53 +/- 0.06). Onset of temperature sensation loss occurred at L-1 after 5 min in both groups. The first signs of motor impairment were seen after 4 min in three patients in group 1 and two patients in group 2. Maximum motor blockade was reached after 30 min in group 1 and after 36 min in group 2. No difference in motor blockade or upward spread of anesthesia was noted between the two groups. The authors conclude that alkalinization of 0.5% bupivacaine offers no improvement in the onset of epidural blockade.     

The pharmacodynamics of ropivacaine and bupivacaine in combined sciatic and femoral nerve blocks for total knee arthroplasty

The potency of ropivacaine compared with bupivacaine in regional anesthesia remains controversial. Therefore, we compared the pharmacodynamics of equal concentrations of bupivacaine and ropivacaine in combined sciatic and femoral nerve blocks for patients undergoing knee arthroplasty. Fifty patients received 40 mL of either 0.5% bupivacaine (n = 25) or 0.5% ropivacaine (n = 25) divided between the sciatic (15 mL) and the femoral (25 mL) nerves before induction of anesthesia. Loss and recovery of sensory (% of cold sensation compared to opposite side) and motor (no contraction or normal muscle force) functions were recorded in the distribution of the femoral, saphenous, common peroneal, and tibial nerves. Pain scores and morphine consumption over 48 h were also evaluated. There were no difference between bupivacaine and ropivacaine in terms of onset of sensory and motor blockade. However, resolution of sensory and motor function was faster in the ropivacaine group but only significantly so for the sciatic nerve and between 24 to 28 h for sensory resolution and 12 to 20 h for motor function. Overall, pain scores and morphine consumption were similar. In conclusion, we showed that block resolution is different between bupivacaine and ropivacaine when administered for combined sciatic and femoral nerve blocks. A new systematic method to assess sciatic and femoral nerve blockade is proposed.     

Hyperbaric spinal ropivacaine: a comparison to bupivacaine in volunteers

BACKGROUND: Ropivacaine is a newly introduced local anesthetic that may be a useful alternative to low-dose bupivacaine for outpatient spinal anesthesia. However, its relative potency to bupivacaine and its dose-response characteristics are unknown. This double-blind, randomized, crossover study was designed to determine relative potencies of low-dose hyperbaric spinal ropivacaine and bupivacaine and to assess the suitability of spinal ropivacaine for outpatient anesthesia. METHODS: Eighteen healthy volunteers were randomized into three equal groups to receive one spinal administration with bupivacaine and a second with ropivacaine, of equal-milligram doses (4, 8, or 12 mg) of 0.25% drug with 5% dextrose. The duration of blockade was assessed with (1) pinprick, (2) transcutaneous electrical stimulation, (3) tolerance to high tourniquet, (4) electromyography and isometric force dynamometry, and (5) achievement of discharge criteria. Differences between ropivacaine and bupivacaine were assessed with linear and multiple regression. P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Ropivacaine and bupivacaine provided dose-dependent prolongation of sensory and motor block and time until achievement of discharge criteria (R2 ranges from 0.33-0.99; P values from < 0.001 through 0.01). Spinal anesthesia with ropivacaine was significantly different from bupivacaine and was approximately half as potent for all criteria studied. A high incidence of back pain (28%; P = 0.098) was noted after intrathecal ropivacaine was given. CONCLUSION: Ropivacaine is half as potent and in equipotent doses has a similar profile to bupivacaine with a higher incidence of side effects. Low-dose hyperbaric spinal ropivacaine does not appear to offer an advantage over bupivacaine for use in outpatient anesthesia.     

Lumbar plexus and sciatic nerve block for knee arthroplasty: comparison of ropivacaine and bupivacaine

PURPOSE: Information about the onset time and duration of action of ropivacaine during a combined lumbar plexus and sciatic nerve block is not available. This study compares bupivacaine and ropivacaine to determine the optimal long-acting local anaesthetic for lumbar plexus and sciatic nerve block in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Forty adult patients scheduled for unilateral total knee arthroplasty, under lumbar plexus and sciatic block were entered into this double-blind randomized study. Patients were assigned (20 per group) to receive lumbar plexus block using 30 ml of local anaesthetic and a sciatic nerve block using 15 ml of local anaesthetic with either bupivacaine 0.5% or ropivacaine 0.5%. All solutions contained fresh epinephrine in a 1:400,000 concentration. Every one minute after local anaesthetic injection, patients were assessed to determine loss of motor function and loss of pinprick sensation in the L1-S1 dermatomes. The time to request first analgesic was documented from the PCA pump. This time was used as evidence of block regression. RESULTS: Blocks failed in four patients in each group. The mean onset time of both motor and sensory blockade was between 14 and 18 min in both groups. Duration of sensory blockade was longer in the bupivacaine group, 17 +/- 3 hr, than in the ropivacaine group, 13 +/- 2 hr (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: We conclude that bupivacaine 0.5% and ropivacaine 0.5% have a similar onset of motor and sensory blockade when used for lumbar plexus and sciatic nerve block. Analgesic duration from bupivacaine 0.5% was prolonged by four hours compared with an equal volume of ropivacaine 0.5%.     

Hyperbaric spinal ropivacaine for cesarean delivery: a comparison to hyperbaric bupivacaine.

We evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of spinal anesthesia with 0.5% hyperbaric ropivacaine compared with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine for elective cesarean delivery. Sixty healthy, full-term parturients were randomly assigned to receive either 12 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine or 18 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric ropivacaine intrathecally. There were no significant differences in demographic or surgical variables or neonatal outcomes between groups. Onset time of sensory block to T10 or to peak level was later in the Ropivacaine group (P < 0.05). The median (range) peak level of analgesia was T3 (T1-5) in the Bupivacaine group and T3 (T1-4) in the Ropivacaine group. Time for sensory block to recede to T10 did not differ between groups. Duration of sensory block was shorter in the Ropivacaine group (188.5 +/- 28.2 min vs 162.5 +/- 20.2 min; P < 0.05). Complete motor block of the lower extremities was obtained in all patients. Ropivacaine also produced a shorter duration of motor blockade than bupivacaine (113.7 +/- 18.6 min vs 158.7 +/- 31.2 min; P < 0.000). The intraoperative quality of anesthesia was excellent and similar in both groups. Side effects did not differ between groups. Eighteen milligrams of 0.5% hyperbaric ropivacaine provided effective spinal anesthesia with shorter duration of sensory and motor block, compared with 12 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine when administered for cesarean delivery Implications: Eighteen milligrams of 0.5% hyperbaric ropivacaine provided effective spinal anesthesia with shorter duration of sensory and motor block, compared with 12mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine when administered for cesarean delivery.     

Lateral approach to the sciatic nerve in the popliteal fossa: a comparison between 1.5% mepivacaine and 0.75% ropivacaine

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ropivacaine and mepivacaine are commonly used local anesthetics for peripheral nerve blockade. The purpose of the present study was to compare onset time, quality of anesthesia, and duration of analgesia with ropivacaine 0.75% and mepivacaine 1.5% for lateral popliteal nerve block. METHODS: Fifty American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II patients scheduled for foot and ankle surgery with calf tourniquet under lateral popliteal sciatic nerve block were randomly assigned to receive 30 mL of either ropivacaine 0.75% or mepivacaine 1.5%. Time required for onset of sensory and motor block, resolution of motor blockade, onset of postsurgical pain, and time of first analgesic medication were recorded. RESULTS: The 2 groups were similar with regard to demographic variables and duration of surgery. Onset of sensory and motor block was significantly shorter in the mepivacaine group (9.9 +/- 3.3 min and 14.7 +/- 3.6 min, respectively) than in the ropivacaine group (18.1 +/- 6.1 min and 23.6 +/- 5.5 min, respectively) (P < 0.001). Resolution of motor block occurred later in the ropivacaine group than in the mepivacaine group (P < 0.001), and duration of postoperative analgesia was significantly longer in the ropivacaine group (19 +/- 3.4 h) compared with the mepivacaine group (5.9 +/- 1.1 h) (P < 0.001). Analgesic requirements were higher in mepivacaine group than in the ropivacaine group (P < 0.001). There were 2 failed blocks, one in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Both ropivacaine and mepivacaine provided effective sciatic nerve blockade. Mepivacaine 1.5% displayed a significantly shorter onset time than ropivacaine 0.75%. Postoperatively, ropivacaine 0.75% resulted in longer-lasting analgesia and less need for oral pain medication.