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.     

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.     

Duration and quality of postoperative analgesia after brachial plexus block for shoulder surgery: ropivacaine 0.5% versus ropivacaine 0.5% plus clonidine

OBJECTIVES: Some authors have found that nerve blocks with local anesthetics may last longer if clonidine is added. The present study analyzed the duration and quality of analgesia provided by an interscalene brachial plexus block for shoulder surgery using 0.5% ropivacaine or 0.5% ropivacaine with added clonidine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty patients were assigned to two groups for double-blind study. The block was performed with 0.5% ropivacaine (40 mL) in group A and with 0.5% ropivacaine (40 mL) and clonidine (40 micrograms) in group B. General anesthesia was provided with propofol in continuous perfusion. Ventilation was spontaneous through a laryngeal mask. After stimulation of the brachial plexus nerves, the anesthesiology administered the assigned drug or drugs. The patient was instructed to remember the time of reversion of the sensory-motor block. Postoperative analgesia was assessed on a visual analog scale at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 24 hours. RESULTS: The mean times until reversion of the sensory-motor block and the assessments of pain at 4, 6, 8 and 24 hours in the two groups were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Adding 40 micrograms of clonidine to 200 mg of 0.5% ropivacaine does not prolong the sensory-motor block or improve the quality of analgesia in the early postoperative period.     

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.     

A clinical comparison of ropivacaine 0.75%, ropivacaine 1% or bupivacaine 0.5% for interscalene brachial plexus anaesthesia

In order to compare interscalene brachial plexus block performed with ropivacaine or bupivacaine, 45 healthy, unpremedicated patients, undergoing elective shoulder surgery, were randomly allocated to receive interscalene brachial plexus anaesthesia with 20 mL of either ropivacaine 0.75% (n = 15), ropivacaine 1% (n = 15), or bupivacaine 0.5% (n = 15). Readiness for surgery (loss of pinprick sensation from C4 to C7 and inability to elevate the limb from the bed) was achieved later with bupivacaine 0.5% (28 +/- 15 min) than with ropivacaine 1% (10 +/- 5 min) (P = 0.005) and ropivacaine 0.75% (15 +/- 8 min) (P = 0.0005). No differences in success rate were observed between the three groups; however, seven patients receiving bupivacaine 0.5% required intra-operative analgesic supplementation (fentanyl 0.1 mg intravenous) compared with one patient receiving ropivacaine 0.75%, and two patients treated with ropivacaine 1% (P = 0.02). The time from the block placement to first request for pain medication was similar in the three groups (10.7 +/- 2 h, 11 +/- 2.4 h, and 10.9 +/- 3.9 h after 0.75% and 1% ropivacaine or 0.5% bupivacaine, respectively). We conclude that interscalene brachial plexus block performed with 20 mL of either 0.75% or 1% ropivacaine allows for a prolonged post-operative pain relief, similar to that provided by bupivacaine 0.5%, with short onset time of surgical anaesthesia.     

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.     

A double-blinded, randomized comparison of either 0.5% levobupivacaine or 0.5% ropivacaine for sciatic nerve block

To compare intraoperative and postoperative clinical properties of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine for sciatic nerve block, 50 ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing hallux valgus repair received a femoral nerve block with 15 mL of 2% mepivacaine. They were then randomly allocated in a double-blinded fashion to receive a sciatic nerve block with either 0.5% levobupivacaine (n = 25) or 0.5% ropivacaine (n = 25). An independent blinded observer evaluated the onset time of surgical anesthesia as well as the quality of the surgical block and postoperative analgesia. The median (range) onset time of surgical block at the sciatic nerve distribution was 30 min (5-60 min) with levobupivacaine and 15 min (5-60 min) with ropivacaine (P = 0.63). Four patients (two patients in each group) received a supplementary ankle block by the surgeon just before the beginning of surgery. All four patients also received IV fentanyl supplementation, but in three of them, propofol infusion was required to complete surgery (two in the Levobupivacaine group [8%] and one in the Ropivacaine group [4%]; P = 0.99). In six patients of the Levobupivacaine group (24%) and five patients of the Ropivacaine group (20%), IV fentanyl supplementation was required to complete surgery (P = 0.99). No differences in the time to recovery of sensory and motor function were observed between the two groups, whereas median (range) duration of postoperative analgesia was 16 h (8-24 h) with levobupivacaine and 16 h (8-24 h) with ropivacaine (P = 0.83). We conclude that 0.5% levobupivacaine and 0.5% ropivacaine provide comparable surgical anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. IMPLICATIONS: No studies have compared the clinical properties of levobupivacaine with those of ropivacaine when providing sciatic nerve block for hallux valgus repair. Results from this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study demonstrate that 20 mL of either 0.5% levobupivacaine or 0.5% ropivacaine provide comparable surgical block with prolonged postoperative analgesia.     

Epinephrine does not prolong the analgesia of 20 mL ropivacaine 0.5% or 0.2% in a femoral three-in-one block.

We tested the effect of epinephrine added to 20 mL ropivacaine 0.5% and 0.2% on postoperative analgesia via a femoral catheter after total knee replacement. Forty-one patients undergoing total knee replacement under combined peripheral block/general anesthesia were randomly allocated to two groups. After insertion of a femoral catheter, 21 patients in the Ropivacaine-Epinephrine (ROPI-EPI) group received 20 mL ropivacaine 0.5% plus epinephrine 1:200,000, whereas 20 patients in the Ropivacaine group (ROPI) received 20 mL plain ropivacaine 0.5%. Thereafter, a sciatic block with 30 mL bupivacaine 0.5% plus epinephrine 1:200,000 was performed in all patients, followed by general anesthesia. After surgery, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with ropivacaine 0.2% plus epinephrine 1:200,000 for Group ROPI-EPI and plain ropivacaine 0.2% for Group ROPI was available via the femoral catheter (200 mL ropivacaine 0.2% +/- epinephrine, bolus 20 mL, lockout 120 min). The patients were instructed to use PCA when the knee pain score was >3 cm. The interval between the initial ropivacaine injection and the first PCA injection determined the duration of 20 mL ropivacaine 0.5% +/- epinephrine, whereas the interval between the first and second PCA injection determined the duration of 20 mL ropivacaine 0.2% +/- epinephrine. The average duration of ropivacaine 0.5% was 657 +/- 345 min for the ROPI-EPI group and 718 +/- 423 min for the ROPI group (NS), whereas for ropivacaine 0.2%, the average duration was 409 +/- 245 min for the ROPI-EPI group and 419 +/- 339 min for the ROPI group (not significant). We conclude that epinephrine does not influence the duration of analgesia of the ropivacaine concentrations investigated. IMPLICATIONS: We evaluated the effect of epinephrine on the duration of analgesia of 20 mL ropivacaine 0.5% or 0.2% injected in femoral three-in-one block for pain relief after total knee replacement. Our results show that epinephrine does not alter the duration of analgesia of the two solutions investigated.     

Brachial plexus block with a new local anaesthetic: 0.5 percent ropivacaine

A new local anaesthetic, ropivacaine hydrochloride, was used in a concentration of 0.5 per cent in 32 patients receiving a subclavian perivascular block for upper extremity surgery. One group (n = 15) received 0.5 per cent ropivacaine without epinephrine and a second group (n = 17) received 0.5 per cent ropivacaine with epinephrine in a concentration of 1:200,000. Anaesthesia was achieved in 87 per cent of the patients in both groups in all of the C5 through T1 brachial plexus dermatomes. Motor block was profound with 100 per cent of patients in both groups developing paresis at both the shoulder and hand and 100 per cent developing paralysis at the shoulder. There was a rapid initial onset of sensory block (a mean of less than four minutes for analgesia) with a prolonged duration (a mean of greater than 13 hr of analgesia). The addition of epinephrine did not significantly affect the quality or onset of sensory or motor block. The duration of sensory block was reduced by epinephrine at T1 for analgesia and at C7, C8, and T1 for anaesthesia. The duration of sensory block in the remaining brachial plexus dermatomes as well as the duration of motor block was not effected by epinephrine. There was no evidence of cardiovascular or central nervous system toxicity in either group with a mean dose of 2.5-2.6 mg.kg-1 ropivacaine.     

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.     

A comparison of 1% prilocaine with 0.5% ropivacaine for outpatient-based surgery under axillary brachial plexus block.

We compared the use of 1% prilocaine with 0.5% ropivacaine for axillary brachial plexus anesthesia in a double-blinded manner in day-stay patients to determine the better of the two local anesthetics in terms of onset time and duration of motor block. Sixty patients scheduled for outpatient upper-limb surgery were allocated randomly to receive either prilocaine (28 patients) or ropivacaine (32 patients) at a volume of 0.7 mL/kg. The brachial plexus was located with a plexus needle and nerve stimulator. By 20 min after injection of prilocaine or ropivacaine, there was no difference in analgesic effect. By this time, it was apparent whether or not a block was going to be adequate for surgery. Pain returned after a mean of 278 min (SD 111 min; range, 160-630 min) with prilocaine as compared with 636 min (SD 284 min; range, 210-1440 min) with ropivacaine. Analgesia use was similar in both groups. Duration of motor block with prilocaine was a mean of 254 min (SD 62 min; range, 130-385 min), as compared with 642 min (SD 199 min; range, 350-1080 min) with ropivacaine. We conclude that there is no clinically important difference between 1% prilocaine and 0.5% ropivacaine in time to onset of axillary brachial plexus block when they are injected in equal volumes. There is a significantly longer duration of action with ropivacaine, which may make it less suitable for day-stay upper-limb surgery because of the handicap from reduced muscle power. Implications: This study compares two local anesthetics to determine which is most suitable for day-stay upper-limb surgery under axillary brachial plexus block.Prilocaine 1% is more suitable than ropivacaine 0.5% because of a more prolonged duration of action of ropivacaine, although this could be useful in other circumstances.     

Interscalene brachial plexus anesthesia and analgesia for open shoulder surgery: a randomized,double-blinded comparison between levobupivacaine and ropivacaine

We compared the onset time and quality of interscalene brachial plexus block produced with levobupivacaine and ropivacaine in 50 patients undergoing open shoulder surgery randomly allocated to receive 30 mL of 0.5% levobupivacaine (n = 25) or 0.5% ropivacaine (n = 25) injected through a 20-gauge catheter placed into the interscalene sheath using a 18-gauge insulated and stimulating Tuohy introducer. The block was also prolonged after surgery using a patient-controlled interscalene analgesia with 0.125% levobupivacaine or 0.2% ropivacaine, respectively (basal infusion rate, 6 mL/h; bolus, 2 mL; lockout period, 15 min; maximum boluses per hour, three). Three patients (two with levobupivacaine [8%] and one with ropivacaine [4%]) failed to achieve surgical block within 45 min after the injection and were excluded. The onset time of surgical block was 20 min (10-40 min) with levobupivacaine and 20 min (5-45 min) with ropivacaine (P = 0.53). Rescue intraoperative analgesia (0.1 mg of fentanyl IV) was required in eight patients in each group (34%) (P = 0.99). Forty-two patients completed the 24-h postoperative infusion (22 with levobupivacaine and 20 with ropivacaine). Postoperative analgesia was similarly effective in both groups. Total consumption of local anesthetic infused during the first 24 h was 147 mL (144-196 mL) with levobupivacaine and 162 mL (144-248 mL) with ropivacaine (P = 0.019), with a ratio between boluses received and requested of 0.8 (0.4-1.0) and 0.7 (0.4-1.0), respectively (P = 0.004). The degree of motor block of the operated limb was deeper with levobupivacaine than ropivacaine when starting postoperative analgesia; however, no further differences in degree of motor function were observed between the two groups. We conclude that 30 mL of levobupivacaine 0.5% induces an interscalene brachial plexus anesthesia of similar onset and intensity as the one produced by the same volume and concentration of ropivacaine. Postoperative interscalene analgesia with 0.125% levobupivacaine results in similar pain relief and recovery of motor function with less volume of local anesthetic than with 0.2% ropivacaine. IMPLICATIONS: This prospective, randomized, double-blinded study demonstrates that 30 mL of 0.5% levobupivacaine produces an interscalene brachial plexus block of similar onset and quality as the one produced by the same volume of 0.5% ropivacaine. When prolonging the block after surgery, 0.125% levobupivacaine provides adequate pain relief and recovery of motor function after open shoulder surgery, with less volume infused during the first 24 h after surgery than 0.2% ropivacaine.     

1%甲哌卡因与0.5%罗哌卡因用于肌间沟臂丛神经阻滞锁骨骨折术中的比较

目的观察1%甲哌卡因与0.5%罗哌卡因用于肌间沟臂丛神经阻滞锁骨骨折术中麻醉效果的比较。方法择期行肌间沟臂丛神经阻滞锁骨骨折成年患者30例,ASAⅠ~Ⅱ级,随机分为2组(n=15);1%甲哌卡因组(M组)和0.5%罗哌卡因组(R组)。两组均在神经刺激仪引导下,以肌间沟入路行臂丛神经阻滞,M组和R组分别注入1%甲哌卡因25 mL和0.5%罗哌卡因25 mL。观察两组血流动力学,感觉、运动阻滞起效及恢复时间,术后VAS评分,不良反应及麻醉满意度。结果与R组比较,M组感觉、运动阻滞起效时间缩短,阻滞恢复时间缩短(P0.05),术后6 h、12 h的VAS评分增加(P0.05)。结论 1%甲哌卡因与0.5%罗哌卡因行肌间沟臂丛神经阻滞,均能满足锁骨骨折手术。采用1%甲哌卡因较0.5%罗哌卡因起效更快,且感觉、运动恢复更早,利于早期活动,但术后镇痛效果不如0.5%罗哌卡因。     

Comparison of 0.2% ropivacaine and 0.25% bupivacaine for axillary brachial plexus blocks in paediatric hand surgery

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the use of ropivacaine 0.2% with bupivacaine 0.25% for axillary brachial plexus block in children undergoing hand surgery. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized study, 35 children undergoing hand surgery received axillary brachial plexus blocks with 0.5 ml.kg-1 of either 0.2% ropivacaine or 0.25% bupivacaine. Pain scores were noted at 0, 3, 6, 12 and 24 h after surgery. The time to first dose of codeine phosphate and the total doses of all analgesics given were recorded. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups in pain scores, the time to first dose of codeine phosphate or in analgesic requirements in the first 24 h. CONCLUSIONS: Ropivacaine 0.2% is as effective as bupivacaine 0.25% for axillary brachial plexus blocks in children undergoing hand surgery.     

A prospective randomized double-blinded controlled study of ropivacaine 0.75% versus bupivacaine 0.5%-mepivacaine 2% for peribulbar anesthesia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ropivacaine 1% has recently been used in clinical trials for peribulbar anesthesia. This study aims to compare the safety and the efficacy of ropivacaine 0.75% with that of a 1:1 mixture of bupivacaine 0.5% and mepivacaine 2% for peribulbar anesthesia. METHODS: Two thousand patients undergoing peribulbar anesthesia for elective cataract phacoemulsification were prospectively studied over a 1-year period and randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups according to the local anesthetic used. One thousand patients were administered peribulbar anesthesia with 9 mL of ropivacaine 0.75% plus 1 mL of hyaluronidase (group R), and 1,000 patients received peribulbar anesthesia with 4 mL of bupivacaine 0.5% plus 4 mL of mepivacaine 2% plus 1 mL of hyaluronidase plus 1 mL of sodium bicarbonate (group BM). Peribulbar anesthesia was always accomplished by the same physician by 2 injections of 5 mL each, with a 25-gauge 25-mm needle. Evaluation was performed by another physician blinded to the technique used and included assessment of pain on local anesthetic injection, ocular and eyelid akinesia, need for top-up injections, onset time and duration of anesthesia, intraoperative analgesia, duration of surgery, hemodynamic parameters, and incidence of perioperative complications. RESULTS: A greater incidence of pain on injection was found in group BM (P<.001). No difference between the groups was found regarding the onset time and the duration of anesthesia. Perioperative analgesia was satisfactory in both groups with no significant difference. Patients in group R showed a reduced need for top-up injection and a better ocular akinesia at 8 and 10 minutes (P<.01). The akinesia of the eyelid was comparable in the 2 groups and complete in all cases at 8 minutes. Cardiac arrhythmias were more frequent in group BM (P<.01). Local complications did not differ between the groups. An increase in mean artierial blood pressure and heart rate was observed in both groups 1 minute after injection of local anesthetic. CONCLUSIONS: Peribulbar anesthesia with ropivacaine provided better ocular akinesia 8 to 10 minutes after block insertion than a bupivacaine-mepivacaine mixture, which reduced the need for top-up injections. Ropivacaine also caused less pain on injection.     

Tramadol does not prolong the effect of ropivacaine 7.5 mg/ml for axillary brachial plexus block

BACKGROUND: The aim of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to evaluate the effect of the addition of tramadol to ropivacaine on the onset and duration of sensory and motor block, and duration of analgesia, for axillary brachial plexus block. METHODS: After institutional approval and informed consent had been obtained, 45 patients scheduled for forearm or hand surgery under axillary brachial plexus block were randomly allocated into two groups. The ropivacaine group received 40 ml of ropivacaine 7.5 mg/ml plus 2 ml of isotonic sodium chloride solution, and the tramadol group received 40 ml of ropivacaine 7.5 mg/ml plus 2 ml (100 mg) of tramadol. The onset and duration of sensory and motor block in the distribution of the musculocutaneous, radial, median and ulnar nerves, the duration of analgesia, the time to first pain medication, hemodynamics and side-effects were recorded. RESULTS: The addition of tramadol did not improve the speed of onset or increase the duration of sensory and motor block. The durations of analgesia were 631 +/- 33 min and 633 +/- 37 min (mean +/- standard deviation) in the ropivacaine and tramadol groups, respectively (P > 0.05). Hemodynamic parameters and side-effects did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: The addition of 100 mg of tramadol to 7.5 mg/ml of ropivacaine, for axillary brachial plexus block, does not prolong the duration of motor and sensory block and analgesia.     

A multicentre trial of ropivacaine 7.5 mg·ml−1 vs bupivacaine 5 mg·ml−1 for supra clavicular brachial plexus anesthesia

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of ropivacaine 7.5 mg x ml(-1) with bupivacaine 5.0 mg x ml(-1) for subclavian perivascular brachial plexus block. METHODS: After informed consent, 104 ASA I-III adults participated in a randomized, double-blind, multi-center trial to receive 30 ml of either ropivacaine 7.5 mg x ml(-1) or bupivacaine 5.0 mg x ml(-1) for subclavian perivascular brachial plexus block prior to upper limb surgery. Onset and duration of sensory and motor block in the distribution of the axillary, median, musculo-cutaneous, radial and ulnar nerves were assessed. RESULTS: Onset times and duration of sensory and motor block were similar between groups. Mean duration of analgesia for the five nerves was between 11.3 and 14.3 hr with ropivacaine and between 10.3 and 17.1 hr with bupivacaine. Quality of muscle relaxation judged as excellent by the investigators was not significantly different (ropivacaine - 35/49, bupivacaine - 30/49). The median time to first request for analgesia was comparable between the two groups (11-12 hr). One patient developed a grand mal seizure shortly after receiving bupivacaine and recovered consciousness within 30 min. There were no serious adverse events in the ropivacaine group. CONCLUSIONS: Thirty ml ropivacaine 7.5 mg x ml(-1) (225 mg) produced effective and well tolerated brachial plexus block of long duration by the subclavian perivascular route. In this study, the results were similar to those of 30 ml bupivacaine 5.0 mg x ml(-1).     

Comparison of 0.5% ropivacaine and 0.5% bupivacaine for epidural anesthesia in patients undergoing lower-extremity surgery

Ropivacaine is an amide local anesthetic structurally related to, but appearing less cardiotoxic, than bupivacaine. The authors' investigation was designed in a randomized, double-blind fashion to compare the clinical effectiveness of ropivacaine and bupivacaine in patients undergoing lower-extremity surgery. Forty-five patients were randomized to receive 20 ml of 0.5% ropivacaine or bupivacaine. Intermittent sensory (pinprick) and motor (Bromage score) measurements were made while the block was in effect, and changes in heart rate, blood pressure and amounts of additional analgesics, sedatives and other medications were also recorded. Presence of tourniquet pain and the quality of anesthesia were also assessed. One patient was excluded from analysis; thus, 22 patients each received ropivacaine or bupivacaine. No differences were found in patient or perioperative characteristics between the groups. The quality and extent of sensory and motor blockade between groups were comparable, although bupivacaine was slightly longer acting. Cardiovascular changes, incidence of tourniquet pain, and the amounts of supplemental medications necessary were also similar between groups. The authors found 0.5% ropivacaine and bupivacaine to be clinically similar in both sensory- and motor-blocking characteristics, with the exception that bupivacaine produced a blockade of slightly longer duration. Because ropivacaine is reported to be less cardiotoxic than bupivacaine in animal studies, the similarity of clinical epidural anesthesia may make ropivacaine the preferred agent.     

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.     

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.