0.75%罗哌卡因和0.5%布比卡因用于硬膜外阻滞剖宫产手术的比较

目的 比较０．７５％罗哌卡因和０．５％布比卡因对剖宫产手术硬膜外麻醉的临床效果。为罗哌卡因临床应用提供客观依据。方法 ２０例剖宫产术患者（ＡＳＡⅠ～Ⅱ级）随机分为二组，Ｉ组：０．７５％罗派卡因（ｎ＝１０例），ＩＩ组：０．５％布比卡因（ｎ＝１０例）取Ｌ２－３行硬膜外穿刺，向上置管３ｃｍ，注入１．０％利多卡因５ｍｌ试验量，５分钟后注入首次剂量罗哌卡因或布比卡因８～１５ｍｌ总量不超过２０ｍｌ，结果：两组     

0.75%罗哌卡因用于剖宫产手术硬膜外麻醉的研究

目的 评价０．７５％罗哌卡因用于硬膜外麻醉剖宫产手术的临床效果和耐受性,并以０．５％丁哌卡因作为对照组。方法 择期剖宫产手术病人６１例,硬膜外麻醉时随机分别接受０．７５％罗哌卡因或０．５％丁哌卡因,观察感觉阻滞,运动阻滞,术中疼痛,镇痛和腹壁肌松质量及不良反应。     

罗哌卡因含或不含肾上腺素硬膜外麻醉的药效学和药代动力学

目的观察肾上腺素对１％罗哌卡因硬膜外阻滞的药效学和药动学影响。方法选择ＡＳＡⅠ～Ⅱ级行下腹部手术病人１６例,随机分为两组,每组８例。分别用１％罗哌卡因２ｍｇ· ｋｇ~－１（Ｒ组）和加入１： ２００ ０００肾上腺素的 １％罗哌卡因 ２ｍｇ· ｋｇ~－１（ＲＥ组）行硬膜外阻滞,对比两组药效学和药代动力学指标。结果两组药效学指标、Ｃｍａｘ和ＡＵＣ间均无显著性差异。与Ｒ组相比,ＲＥ组的Ｔｍａｘ明显后延（Ｐ＜０．０１）,Ｋ值明显降低（Ｐ＜０．０５）。结论 １：２００ ０００肾上腺素对１％罗派卡因硬膜外阻滞的药效学没有影响,但可以减缓罗哌卡因的吸收和清除。     

0.75%罗比卡因与0.75%布比卡因腰麻—硬膜外联合麻醉应用于剖宫产手术的评价

目的比较0.75%罗哌卡因与0.75%布比卡因腰麻硬膜外联合麻醉用于剖宫产手术的可行性.方法ASAⅠ～Ⅱ级初产妇40例于腰硬联合麻醉下行剖宫产手术,随机、双盲分两组R组(n=20)腰麻用药为0.75%罗哌卡因1.2～1.4ml(9～10.5mg);B组(n=20)腰麻用药为0.75%布比卡因,剂量同R组.术中两组麻醉效应不足时经硬膜外导管补充1.6%利多卡因.术中连续监测呼吸和循环状况,评估麻醉效应,并观察围术期不良反应的发生及新生儿情况.结果两组最高阻滞平面及达到时间相似(P＞0.05),但R组感觉和运动神经阻滞起效慢,维持时间短(P＜0.05);下肢运动阻滞程度R组显著低于B组(P＜0.01);术中R组有4例(20%)发生心动过缓,B组5例(25%)出现主观气促感;新生儿Apgar评分及脐动脉血气值在正常范围内,两组比较无差异(P＞0.05).结论0.75%罗哌卡因用于硬腰联合麻醉剖腹产手术安全有效,与0.75%布比卡因相比,下肢运动阻滞弱且恢复迅速.     

罗哌卡因用于腰麻-硬膜外联合阻滞的临床观察

目的 研究罗哌卡因用于腰麻－硬膜外联合阻滞的安全性和有效性。方法 择期行下肢或会阴部病人６０例,１８～７５岁,ＡＳＡⅠ～Ⅱ级,随机分成三组。用１％罗哌卡因,０．７５％布比卡因和１％地卡因各１ｍｌ,分别加入１０％葡萄糖１ｍｌ和３％麻黄素１ｍｌ配成重比重溶液。用ＤｕｒａｓａｆｅＴＭ型联合阻滞配套针于Ｌ３－４间隙穿刺。以０．１ｍｌ／秒的速率蛛网膜下腔给药１．５－２ｍｌ,术中酌情于硬膜外型联合阻滞配套针于     

罗哌卡因与丁哌卡因硬膜外麻醉剖宫产的药效学比较

目的 将新型酰胺类局部麻醉药罗哌卡因的的药效学与丁哌卡因进行比较。方法 选择行择期剖宫产的产妇２０例,分成两组进行硬膜外麻醉。随机在硬膜外注入０．７５％罗哌卡因。对镇平面及达到最高平面和最低平面所用时间,运动阻滞程度及恢复时间,术中镇痛效果,新生儿Ａｐｇａｒ评分,不良反应的发生情况,血压和心率的变化进行观察。．     

低浓度罗哌卡因和布比卡因分娩镇痛的临床研究

目的 对比低浓度罗哌卡因和布比卡因自控硬膜外分娩镇痛（ＰＣＥＡ）的效果。方法 ５２例单胎初产妇随机分为０．１％罗哌卡因－芬太尼组和０．０７５％布比卡因－芬太尼组。采取双盲法进行视觉模拟镇痛评分（ＶＡＳ）和下肢运动神经阻滞评分（ＭＢＳ）。记录产程时间、生产方式、胎儿心率（ＦＨＲ）及新生儿ＳｐＯ２。结果 两组产妇分娩镇痛效果良好且无显著性差别（Ｐ〉０．０５）。罗哌卡因组和布比卡因组中无运动神经阻滞者分     

O.75%罗比卡因与O.75%布比卡因腰麻-硬膜外联合麻醉应用于剖宫产手术的评价

目的比较0.75%罗哌卡因与0.75%布比卡因腰麻硬膜外联合麻醉用于剖宫产手术的可行性.方法ASA Ⅰ～Ⅱ级初产妇40例于腰硬联合麻醉下行剖宫产手术,随机、双盲分两组:R组(n=20)腰麻用药为0.75%罗哌卡因1.2～1.4ml(9～10.5mg);B组(n=20)腰麻用药为0.75%布比卡因,剂量同R组.术中两组麻醉效应不足时经硬膜外导管补充1.6%利多卡因.术中连续监测呼吸和循环状况,评估麻醉效应,并观察围术期不良反应的发生及新生儿情况.结果两组最高阻滞平面及达到时间相似(P＞0.05),但R组感觉和运动神经阻滞起效慢,维持时间短(P＜0.05);下肢运动阻滞程度R组显著低于B组(P＜0.01);术中R组有4例(20%)发生心动过缓,B组5例(25%)出现主观气促感;新生儿Apgar评分及脐动脉血气值在正常范围内,两组比较无差异(P＞0.05).结论0.75%罗哌卡因用于硬腰联合麻醉剖腹产手术安全有效,与0.75%布比卡因相比,下肢运动阻滞弱且恢复迅速.     

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。     

腰麻与硬膜外麻醉对剖宫产母婴安全及应激反应的影响

目的：研究椎管内麻醉对剖宫产母婴安全和应激反应。方法：选择ＡＳＡ１级剖宫产４２例，随机分腰麻组和硬膜外组各２１例。腰麻组用重比重０．５％丁哌卡因３ｍｌ，硬膜外组用０．７５％丁哌卡因１２￣１５ｍｌ。两组产妇于入手术室、麻醉后、胎儿娩出、手术结束，新生儿脐静脉抽取血样，检测儿茶酚胺、血糠、乳酸、血气。结果：两组儿茶酚胺麻醉后不同期间均比麻醉前明显降低（Ｐ〈０．０１），两组产妇血糠、乳酸不同期间均无显著     

Comparison of 0.75% levobupivacaine with 0.75% racemic bupivacaine for peribulbar anaesthesia

In a single centre, randomised, double-blind study 50 patients scheduled for intra-ocular surgery received 0.75% levobupivacaine or 0.75% racemic bupivacaine for peribulbar anaesthesia. There were no significant differences in the mean (SD) volume of levobupivacaine (11 (2.7) ml) or racemic bupivacaine (10 (2.6) ml) required, time to satisfactory block (levobupivacaine-13 (5.6) min; racemic bupivacaine-11 (4.4) min), peri-operative pain scores or frequency of adverse events between levobupivacaine and racemic bupivacaine. The safer side-effect profile of levobupivacaine may offer significant advantages in the elderly population undergoing cataract extraction in whom intercurrent disease is common.     

Comparison of L-bupivacaine 0.75% and lidocaine 2% with bupivacaine 0.75% and lidocaine 2% for peribulbar anaesthesia

Background. L-Bupivacaine has a safer side-effect profile thanbupivacaine. We compared the efficacy of a mixture of L-bupivacaine0.75% and lidocaine 2% with bupivacaine 0.75% and lidocaine2% for peribulbar anaesthesia in cataract surgery. Methods. Ninety patients were allocated randomly to receive8 ml of a mixture of equal parts of bupivacaine 0.75% and lidocaine2% or an equal volume of L-bupivacaine and lidocaine 2%. Hyaluronidase15 IU ml^–1 was added to both solutions. Results. There were significant differences between the groupsin clinical end-points. The median time at which the block wasadequate to start surgery was 4 min (interquartile range4–8 min) in the bupivacaine group and 8 min (5–12min) in the L-bupivacaine group (P=0.002). Median ocular andeyelid movement scores were similarly significantly decreasedin the bupivacaine group compared with the L-bupivacaine groupat all times (P0.03). There was no difference between groupsin the incidence of minor complications. Conclusions. A mixture of bupivacaine 0.75% and lidocaine 2%provides faster onset time than a mixture of L-bupivacaine 0.75%and lidocaine 2%. Br J Anaesth 2003; 90: 512–14     

0.75%罗比卡因与0.75%布比卡因应用于肾移植术的比较

目的 比较0.75%罗比卡因与0.75%布比卡因硬膜外麻醉用于肾移植术的临床效果。方法 肾移植术者24例，随机分为R1组和B1组，每组12例，肾功能正常行下腹或下肢手术者20例，随机分为R2组和B2组，每组10例，硬膜外分别注入0.75%罗比卡因或0.75%布比卡因16ml，监测循环改变，测定感觉阻滞及下肢运动阻滞效果。结果 R1组运动阻滞达峰时间及麻醉起效时间明显慢性B1组。运动阻滞维持时间R1组短于B1组。最高感觉阻滞平面，感觉阻滞达峰时间及维持时间R1组与B1组相似，B2组运动阻滞达峰时间短于R2组，感觉阻滞达峰时间R1组短于R2组，B1组短于B2组，维持时间R1组长于R2组，B1组长于B2组。结论 行肾移植术者无论使用罗比卡因还是布比卡因，其感觉阻滞达峰快，作用维持时间长。0.75%罗比卡因与0.75%布比卡因相比，感觉阻滞起效慢，运动阻滞达峰时间慢而维持时间短，但罗比卡因组血液动力学稳定。     

Sciatic nerve block with 0.5% levobupivacaine, 0.75% levobupivacaine or 0.75% ropivacaine: a double-blind, randomized comparison

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This prospective, randomized, double-blind study was conducted to evaluate the onset time and duration of sciatic nerve block produced with 0.5% levobupivacaine, 0.75% levobupivacaine and 0.75% ropivacaine. METHODS: Forty-five healthy patients undergoing hallux valgus repair were randomly allocated to receive sciatic nerve block with levobupivacaine 0.5% (n=15), levobupivacaine 0.75% (n=15) or ropivacaine 0.75% 20 mL (n=15). A femoral nerve block was also performed with mepivacaine 2% 15 mL to cover pain related to the thigh tourniquet. A blinded observer recorded the onset time and duration of sciatic nerve block. RESULTS: The median (range) onset time was 5 (5-40) min with 0.75% levobupivacaine, 30 (5-60) min with 0.5% levobupivacaine and 20 (5-50) min with 0.75% ropivacaine (P = 0.02 and P = 0.12, respectively). Mean (25-75 percentiles) first request for pain medication occurred after 13 (11-14) h with 0.75% ropivacaine, 18 (15-19) h with 0.75% levobupivacaine and 16 (13-20) h with 0.5% levobupivacaine (P = 0.002 and P = 0.002, respectively). Rescue tramadol after surgery was required by three patients in the 0.75% levobupivacaine group, eight patients in the 0.5% levobupivacaine group and nine patients in the 0.75% ropivacaine group (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that 0.75% levobupivacaine provides a shorter onset time than 0.5% levobupivacaine and a longer duration of postoperative analgesia than both 0.5% levobupivacaine and 0.75% ropivacaine with reduced need for rescue analgesia after surgery.     

SPINAL ANAESTHESIA WITH 0.75% BUPIVACAINE AND 0.5% AMETHOCAINE IN 5% GLUCOSE

Three millititre of 0.75% plain bupivacaine and 0.5% amethocaine3 ml in 5% glucose were used for spinal anaesthesia and comparedin a double-blind study of 20 patients undergoing urologicalsurgery. The onset time to maximum cephalad spread of sensoryanalgesia was approximately 45 min for bupivacaine and approximately30 min in the amethocaine group (ns). The mean maximum spreadof sensory analgesia was similar for both agents: T6-7 180 minafter injection, although the cephalad spread of sensory analgesiawith bupivacaine persisted for longer at a significantly higherlevel than that of amethocaine. Duration of sensory analgesiawas significantly longer in the bupivacaine group from S3 toS5 and from T12 to L2 levels. Onset time to complete motor blockadeof the lower limbs was similar for both agents. Nine of 10 bupivacainepatients and seven of the 10 patients receiving amethocainehad complete motor blockade of the lower limbs. Duration ofmotor blockade was significantly longer for all degrees in thebupivacaine group.     

Comparison of 1% ropivacaine with 0.75% bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine for peribulbar anaesthesia

We have compared the efficacy of 1% ropivacaine with a mixture of 0.75% bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine for peribulbar anaesthesia in cataract surgery. We used the time to adequate block for surgery, and ocular and eyelid movement scores at 8 min after block as clinical end-points. Ninety patients were allocated randomly to receive 7-10 ml of a mixture of equal parts of 0.75% bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine or an equal volume of 1% ropivacaine alone. Hyaluronidase 15 iu ml-1 was added to both solutions. There were no differences between groups in clinical end- points. Median time at which the block was adequate to start surgery was 8 min (interquartile range 4-10 min) in each group. Median eyelid movement scores were similar in both groups, but the bupivacaine and lidocaine mixture produced a significantly decreased ocular movement score at 2, 4 and 6 min (P < 0.05). There was no difference between groups in the incidence of minor complications. Based on clinical end- points, time to adequate block for surgery and median ocular and eyelid movement scores at 8 min, 1% ropivacaine as the sole agent for peribulbar anaesthesia was comparable with a mixture of 0.75% bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine.