罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼蛛网膜下腔阻滞麻醉用于剖宫产术的效果

目的探讨罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼蛛网膜下腔阻滞麻醉用于剖宫产术的效果。方法随机将蛛网膜下腔阻滞麻醉下择期行剖宫产术的88例产妇分为2组,各44例。对照组应用0.75%罗哌卡因,观察组采用0.75%罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼。比较2组的麻醉效果。结果观察组达到阻滞平面的时间短于对照组,镇痛维持时间长于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。2组新生儿5 min Apgar评分、心率、平均动脉压,以及不良反应发生率,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 0.75%罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼行蛛网膜下腔阻滞麻醉用于剖宫产术,麻醉效果良好、术中血流动力学稳定、不良反应少、安全性较高。     

罗哌卡因、左旋布比卡因与布比卡因低位硬膜外麻醉的比较

目的比较罗哌卡因、左旋布比卡因与布比卡因低位硬膜外麻醉的临床效果。方法60例行下腹部手术病人。随机分成三组,每组20例。Ⅰ组：0．5％罗哌卡因;Ⅱ组：0．5％左旋布比卡因;Ⅲ组：0．5％布比卡因。行连续低位硬膜外麻醉。观察感觉阻滞起效时间、感觉阻滞平面上界、运动阻滞起效时间、运动阻滞程度及麻醉质量。结果Ⅰ、Ⅱ和Ⅲ组首次局麻药用量分别为（14．38±1．57）、（14．75±0．50）和（13．80±1．30）ml。Ⅰ组运动阻滞起效时间比Ⅲ组长（P〈0．05）,Ⅰ组Bromage评分为1分的例数多于Ⅲ组（P〈0．05）。与Ⅲ组比较,Ⅰ、Ⅱ组感觉阻滞起效时间、感觉阻滞平面上界差异均无统计学意义。Ⅲ组SBP在感觉阻滞平面达上界及运动阻滞起效时有明显降低（P〈0．05）。结论0．5％罗哌旨因、左旋布比卡因或布比卡因连续硬膜外麻醉均可产生良好的感觉和运动阻滞,三种药物药效学相似。     

鞘内注射罗哌卡因、左旋布比卡因和布比卡因后运动阻滞效能的比较

目的测定罗哌卡因、左旋布比卡因和布比卡因鞘内注射后运动阻滞的半数有效量（ED50）及其运动阻滞的相对效能。方法104例在腰麻、硬膜外联合麻醉下行择期剖宫产的产妇随机分为3组，分别鞘内注射0．5％（质量／体积）的罗哌卡因、左旋布比卡因和布比卡因，起始剂量是4mg，试验递增剂量为1mg.有效的定义是：鞘内注药5分钟内任一下肢出现运动阻滞（改良的Bromage评分和臀部运动功能评分）。结果鞘内注射罗哌卡因运动阻滞的ED50值为5．79mg（95％CI：4．62～6．96）；左旋布比卡因的ED50为4．83mg（95％CI：4．35～5．32）；布比卡因的ED50为3．44mg（95％CI：2．55～4．34）（P〈0．0007）。运动阻滞效能的相对比例：罗哌卡因／布比卡因为0．59（95％CI：0．42—0．82）；罗哌卡因／左旋布比卡因为0．83（95％CI：0．64～1．09）；左旋布比卡因／布比卡因为0．71（95％CI：0．51～0．98）。结论3种酰胺类局麻药鞘内注射后运动阻滞效能由低到高分别是：罗哌卡因、左旋布比卡因和布比卡因。     

等剂量罗哌卡因、左布比卡因腰麻应用于剖宫产术中的比较

目的比较0.75%罗哌卡因和0.75%左布比卡因对剖宫产手术腰麻的临床效果。方法 160例ASA1～2级择期剖宫产手术患者随机分为0.75%罗哌卡因（R）组和0.75%左布比卡因（L）组。采用25G腰麻穿刺针,于L3～4间隙穿刺。监测两组感觉运动阻滞情况、麻醉效果及不良反应情况。结果 R组最大阻滞时间、最大运动阻滞时间均高于L组;而运动恢复时间,R组低于L组,两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论等剂量罗哌卡因和左旋布比卡因腰麻麻醉效果和不良反应差异无统计学意义,左旋布比卡因运动神经阻滞比罗哌卡因更完全,罗哌卡因则具有运动神经阻滞起效慢而恢复较快的特点。     

罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼蛛网膜下腔麻醉在剖宫产术中的应用

目的探讨罗哌卡因复合小剂量舒芬太尼蛛网膜下腔注射在剖宫产术中的应用。方法将120例择期行剖宫产术产妇随机均分3组:A组为0.75%罗哌卡因10 mg。B组为0.75%罗哌卡因10 mg复合舒芬太尼3μg。C组为0.75%罗哌卡因10 mg复合舒芬太尼5μg。经L2-3行腰—硬联合麻醉,留置硬膜外导管备用。记录3组产妇麻醉效果,感觉和运动阻滞程度和时间,术中血流动力学变化和不良反应、新生儿apgar评分及硬膜外追加局麻药情况。结果 3组均安全完成手术,最高感觉阻滞平面、运动阻滞程度及恢复时间、新生儿apgar评分差异无统计学意义。麻醉优良率C组>B组>A组,但皮肤瘙痒的例数C组>B组>A组,C、B 2组镇痛时间长于A组(P<0.05),3组产妇生命体征变化差异无统计学意义,均无呼吸抑制发生。硬膜外追加局麻药的例数A组明显高于C、B 2组(P<0.05)。结论罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼蛛网膜下腔麻醉效果满意,术后镇痛时间长,不良反应少,可安全用于剖宫产术。     

罗哌卡因与布比卡因腰麻在肛肠疾病术中应用比较

观察比较小剂量相同浓度罗哌卡因与布比卡因腰麻在肛肠疾病手术中的麻醉效果。将80例ASAI,Ⅱ级肛门直肠部择期手术患者按双盲法随机分为罗哌卡因组和布比卡因组,每组40例。两组腰麻用药分别为0．5％罗哌卡因和0．5％布比卡因,用量均为1．5ml。记录两组感觉阻滞、运动阻滞情况和麻醉各时点血压心率变化及不良反应。结果显示,两组均获得满意的麻醉效果。罗哌卡因组和布比卡因组的运动阻滞起效时间分别为（182．5±26．8）s和（145．7±27．4）S（P〈0．01）,最大运动阻滞时间分别为（12．7±4．2）min和（8．0±3．5）min（P〈0．05）,运动阻滞恢复时间分别为（125．9±32．5）min和（158．8±38．7）min（P〈0．01）,感觉阻滞起效时间、程度、阻滞平面相似,两组均无严重不良反应发生。结果表明,0．5％罗哌卡因腰麻用于肛肠疾病手术,能达到满意的麻醉效果,且安全、运动阻滞程度轻。     

蛛网膜下腔阻滞麻醉应用0.5%或0.75%罗哌卡因或0.5%布比卡因的效果比较

目的：观察不同浓度罗哌卡因用于蛛网膜下腔阻滞的效果。方法：45例择期膝关节镜手术病人，随机分为三组，每组15例，分别于蛛网膜下腔注入0.5%布比卡因2.5ml（C组），0.5%罗哌卡因2.5ml（R1组）或0.75%罗哌卡因2.5ml（R2组）。记绿麻醉后的血压、心率、脉博血氧饱和度，感觉与运动阻滞的起效时间，达最高阻滞平面和最大阻滞程度的时间。感觉与运动阻滞的恢复时间。术后第二天随访记录术后并发症。结果：三组病人感觉阻滞起效和达到最高阻滞平面无显著性差异。感觉阻滞维持时间以0.75%罗哌卡因组与0.5%布比卡因组明显长于0.5%罗哌卡因组，而前两组间无显著性差异，运动阻滞起效时间三组组无显著性差异。运动阻滞程度及维持时间以0.5%罗哌卡因组较0.75%罗哌卡因组或0.5%布比卡因组有显著性差异。而后两组间无显著性差异。结论：蛛网膜下腔阻滞应用0.75%罗哌卡因与0.5%d布比卡因的作用相似，均可以安全使用于蛛网膜下腔阻滞麻醉。0.75%罗哌卡因可提供更完善的运动和感觉阻滞。     

芬太尼对罗哌卡因低位硬膜外麻醉效果的影响

目的探讨芬太尼对罗哌卡因行低位矿膜外麻醉时的麻醉效果及其量效关系的影响。方法60例ASAI-Ⅱ级择期腰椎间盘手术成年病人，随机分为A、B、C三组，每组20例，均于T12／L1椎间隙行硬膜外腔穿刺，向下置管3cm。硬膜外局麻药配方分别为：A组0．5％罗哌卡因、B组0．5％罗哌卡因＋芬太尼2mg／L、C组0．5％罗哌卡因＋芬太尼4mg／L。观察记录麻醉效果，持续时间，运动阻滞程度及副作用等。应用Probit半数效量回归法分别计算三组ED50值和ED95值。结果三组配方60例病人在腰椎手术中行硬膜外麻醉有58例获得满意效果。罗哌卡因在C组ED50值和ED95值均明显小于A组（P〈0．05）。C组麻醉持续时间较A、B组长，Bromage评级较A、B组低（P〈0．05），三组间不良反应发生例数无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论低位硬膜外麻醉时芬太尼能明显增强罗哌卡因麻醉效果，延长麻醉作用时间，并减轻下肢运动阻滞程度，其中C组效果最佳。     

盐酸罗哌卡因腰麻加硬膜外阻滞在肛周手术中的应用

为探讨盐酸罗哌卡因腰麻加硬膜外阻滞在肛周手术中的麻醉效果,将80例肛周手术患者随机分为两组,分别采用0．5％布比卡因（B组）和0．5%罗哌卡因（L组）,施行腰麻加硬膜外阻滞用于肛周手术,观察两组患者感觉阻滞维持时间和麻醉效果。结果显示,两组患者麻醉效果满意率无明显差异,感觉阻滞时间L组明显长于B组。结果表明,0．5％罗哌卡因腰麻加硬膜外阻滞用于肛周手术具有良好的麻醉效果和安全性。     

罗哌卡因蛛网膜下腔阻滞用于肛门直肠手术的临床观察

目的 探讨罗哌卡因蛛网膜下腔阻滞用于肛门直肠手术的麻醉效果.方法 AsA Ⅰ～Ⅱ级肛门直肠手术患者60例,按数字随机法分成两组,分别采用0.75%布比卡因(B组)和0.75%罗哌卡因(L组)施行蛛网膜下腔阻滞用于肛门直肠手术.观察两组患者感觉阻滞维持时间和麻醉效果.结果 B组患者麻醉效果满意率明显高于L组,感觉阻滞时间L组明显长于B组.结论 0.75%罗哌卡因蛛网膜下腔阻滞用于肛门直肠手术虽然有较高的安全性和长效性,但麻醉效果略逊于0.75%布比卡因.     

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.     

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.     

A comparison of intrathecal plain solutions containing ropivacaine 20 or 15 mg versus bupivacaine 10 mg

Ropivacaine, which blocks sensory nerve fibers more readily than motor fibers, is considered to be less potent than bupivacaine. Our hypothesis was that, when used in spinal anesthesia for day surgery, ropivacaine 15 and 20 mg would provide faster motor recovery than bupivacaine 10 mg. This prospective, randomized, double-blinded study included 90 ambulatory lower-extremity surgery patients who received 2 mL of ropivacaine 1%, ropivacaine 0.75%, or bupivacaine 0.5%. Motor block was tested with the Bromage scale, and sensory block was tested with pinprick. Ropivacaine 15 mg provided faster recovery of motor block (150 min) than did bupivacaine 10 mg (210 min; P = 0.005), but the median duration of sensory block at T10 (140 min) did not differ significantly from that with bupivacaine 10 mg (140 min). The median duration of sensory block at T10 was significantly longer with ropivacaine 20 mg (170 min) than with bupivacaine 10 mg (140 min; P = 0.005), but the median recovery from motor block (210 min) did not differ significantly. We conclude that the duration of sensory block of ropivacaine was two thirds and the duration of motor block was half when compared with bupivacaine, with calculations based on the duration-per-milligram of the local anesthetic.     

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%.     

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.     

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.     

Efficacy of 1% ropivacaine at sacral segments in lumbar epidural anesthesia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: It is suggested that the potency of 1% ropivacaine is comparable to that of 0.75% bupivacaine and higher than that of 2% lidocaine. Alkalinized lidocaine reportedly enhances the block of sacral segments during lumbar epidural anesthesia. We hypothesized that 1% ropivacaine might also block at the lumbosacral segments adequately during lumbar epidural anesthesia. METHODS: Forty-two patients undergoing lumbar epidural anesthesia at L4-5 or L5-S1 were randomly divided into 3 groups and received either 14 mL 2% lidocaine (lidocaine group), 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:200,000 and bicarbonate (lidocaine-epinephrine-bicarbonate group), or 1% ropivacaine (ropivacaine group). Pain threshold after repeated electrical stimulation was used to assess sensory block at the L2, S1, and S3 segments while motor block was evaluated using the modified Bromage Scale. RESULTS: Demographic data were comparable between the groups. Significant differences in the pH of each local anesthetic solution were found between the 3 groups. Pain thresholds at the S1 and S3 segments in the lidocaine-epinephrine-bicarbonate group were significantly higher and sensory block onset faster than in the other groups. However, no significant differences were found in either the pain threshold or the onset of sensory block of the L2 segment between the groups. No significant differences in the pain threshold, onset of sensory block, or Bromage Scale were found between the lidocaine and ropivacaine groups. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that 1% ropivacaine does not improve block of sacral segments within 20 minutes following epidural ropivacaine administration.     

Peribulbar anesthesia with either 0.75% ropivacaine or a 2% lidocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine mixture for vitreoretinal surgery: a double-blinded study.

No study has evaluated the efficacy of ropivacaine in peribulbar block for ophthalmic surgery. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study was to compare ropivacaine and a lidocaine-bupivacaine mixture in peribulbar anesthesia. Sixty ASA physical status I or II patients scheduled for elective vitreoretinal surgery were randomized to receive a peribulbar block with 8 mL of either 0.75% ropivacaine (ropivacaine group, n = 30) or a 1:1 mixture of 2% plain lidocaine and 0.5% plain bupivacaine (lido-bupivacaine group, n = 30). Time required for onset of surgical anesthesia, quality of postoperative analgesia, incidence of side effects, and analgesic consumption were recorded. Surgical block was achieved after 8 +/- 5 min in the lido-bupivacaine group and after 10 +/- 5 min in the ropivacaine group (P = 0.23). A 3-mL supplemental injection 15 min after block placement was required in 6 patients in the lido-bupivacaine group (20%) and in 10 patients in the ropivacaine group (33%) due to inadequate motor block (P = 0.38). On Postoperative Day 1, 26 patients in the ropivacaine group (87%) reported no pain at the verbal rating score, compared with 18 patients in the lido-bupivacaine group (60%) (P = 0.005). We conclude that 0.75% ropivacaine may be a suitable choice when performing peribulbar anesthesia for vitreoretinal surgery. IMPLICATIONS: Quick onset of block with prolonged postoperative analgesia is an important goal in regional anesthesia for ophthalmic surgery. Evaluating clinical properties of 0.75% ropivacaine and a 1:1 mixture of 2% lidocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine for peribulbar anesthesia, we demonstrated that ropivacaine has an onset similar to that of the lidocaine-bupivacaine mixture and provides a better quality of postoperative analgesia.     

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.     

Levobupivacaina,bupivacaina racemica e ropivacaina nel blocco del plesso brachiale

BACKGROUND: To compare clinical profiles of levobupivacaine, racemic bupivacaine and ropivacaine at equipotent doses in axillary brachial plexus block in the orthopaedic surgery of wrist and hand. METHODS: For this prospective, open randomised study we took on 45 patients of both sexes, ASA I-III, subdivided into three groups in which, respectively, axillary brachial plexus block was performed, with ENS, using levobupivacaine 0.50% (1 mg/kg), racemic bupivacaine 0.50% (1 mg/kg) and ropivacaine 0.75% (1.4 mg/kg). The onset of sensory and motor block, their duration, onset of surgical block, anaesthetic plane and possible adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: The duration of sensory block was longer in group of patients treated with levobupivacaine than in two other groups. Surgical onset was similar for levobupivacaine and ropivacaine, but it was delayed for racemic bupivacaine. In group of patients who received racemic bupivacaine, two episodes of reduction in heart rate without significant hypotension have been observed. The anaesthetic plan was satisfactory in the all three groups of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience levobupivacaine has been demonstrated to be a good substitute for racemic bupivacaine. Compared to ropivacaine, levobupivacaine induces a longer duration of postsurgery analgesia and, in our opinion, this datum seems to be the most significant.