剖宫产术患者重比重罗哌卡因混合小剂量舒芬太尼腰麻的效果

目的探讨重比重罗哌卡因混合小剂量舒芬太尼用于剖宫产术患者腰麻的效果。方法择期行剖宫产术的单胎和妊娠足月初产妇40例,年龄22～34岁,体重60～73 kg,ASAⅠ级。随机分为2组（n=20）,罗哌卡因组（R组）蛛网膜下腔注射1%罗哌卡因1.5 ml（15 nag）＋生理盐水0.7ml＋ 50%葡萄糖0.3 ml;罗哌卡因＋舒芬太尼组（R＋S组）蛛网膜下腔注射1%罗哌卡因1.5 ml（15 mg）＋舒芬太尼5μg（0.1 ml）＋生理盐水0.6 ml＋50%葡萄糖0.3ml。蛛网膜下腔穿刺成功后,将混合药液注入蛛网膜下腔,速率0.1 ml/s。记录感觉阻滞、运动阻滞情况,术中疼痛程度、腹肌松弛程度和牵拉反应程度,术中低血压、心动过缓、恶心、呕吐及瘙痒等不良反应的发生和处理情况,新生儿体重及出生后1 min和5 min Apgar评分。结果R＋S组蛛网膜下腔注药后感觉阻滞平面达到T10、T6和最高阻滞平面的时间短于R组,且最高阻滞平面升高（P〈0.05或0.01）;蛛网膜下腔注药后2组下肢运动阻滞起效时间和达最大运动阻滞时间差异无统计学意义,2组最大运动阻滞评分均为3分（P〉0.05）。R＋S组感觉阻滞恢复至L3、首次感觉疼痛和开始PCA镇痛的时间比R组长（P〈0.05或0.01）,下肢运动阻滞完全恢复时间组间比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。R＋S组牵拉反应程度低于R组（P〈0.01）。2组不良反应发生率、麻黄碱和阿托品使用率及新生儿体重、出生后1min和5 min Apgar评分差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论剖宫产术患者重比重罗哌卡因混合舒芬太尼5μg腰麻感觉阻滞起效时间缩短,阻滞平面上移,持续镇痛作用时间延长。     

不同小剂量低浓度罗哌卡因用于老年患者腰-硬联合麻醉的研究

目的 观察不同小剂量罗哌卡因用于老年患者腰-硬联合麻醉对下肢手术的可行性.方法 择期下肢手术的老年患者120例,随机分为三组,每组40例.A组:0.5%罗哌卡因5～7.5mg+10%葡萄糖0.5ml;B组:0.75%罗哌卡因5～7.5mg +10%葡萄糖0.5ml;C组:0.75%罗哌卡因8～10mg+10%葡萄糖0.5ml.观察感觉阻滞、运动阻滞起效时间和最高时间,最高麻醉阻滞平面,痛觉及运动阻滞维持时间,不良反应及血流动力学等.Bromage法评定运动神经阻滞程度.连续监测SBP、DBP、HR、SpO2、ECG.结果 随着罗哌卡因浓度剂量的降低,感觉、运动阻滞起效时间和最大阻滞时间延长,维持时间缩短;与C组比较,A、B组感觉、运动阻滞起效时间、最大时间、维持时间差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05),A与B组比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).三组运动阻滞的Bromage评分组差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).术中低血压使用麻黄碱A组为0,B、C组均使用麻黄碱,但这两组比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),三组均未发生呕吐、头痛和神经系统症状.结论 0.5%罗哌卡因5～7.5mg+10%葡萄糖0.5ml配方可安全应用于蛛网膜下腔阻滞,适应于老年患者下肢手术,是一种较安全有效的麻醉方法.     

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。     

不同浓度罗哌卡因蛛网膜下腔麻醉在肛周手术中的应用

探讨不同剂量罗哌卡因蛛网膜下腔阻滞麻醉在肛周手术中的效果。选择蛛网膜下腔阻滞麻醉下行肛周手术的患者93例,随机分为三组,每组31例。A组:采用0.75%罗哌卡因2.0 mL;B组:采用0.5%罗哌卡因2.0 mL;C组:采用0.25%罗哌卡因2.0 mL。观察并记录麻醉起效时间、麻醉效果、术后运动阻滞及尿潴留发生情况。三组患者感觉阻滞起效时间及麻醉优良率比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术毕时下肢运动阻滞0~I级者:A组(31/31,100.0%)和B组(10/31,32.3%)明显高于C组(4/31,12.9%,P0.05)。尿潴留发生率:C组(2/31,6.5%)明显低于A组(7/31,22.6%)和B组(11/31,35.5%,P0.05)。采用0.25%罗哌卡因2.0 mL蛛网膜下腔阻滞麻醉行肛周手术,麻醉效果确切、下肢运动神经阻滞轻且尿潴留发生率低。     

0.5%罗哌卡因与布比卡因10mg在蛛网膜下腔阻滞的比较

目的观察0.5%罗哌卡因、布比卡因10 mg蛛网膜下腔阻滞对感觉、运动神经的阻滞效果及对血流动力学影响。方法随机选取择期行下肢、下腹或肛肠手术病人48例,ASAⅠ~Ⅱ级,分为布比卡因组(BP组)和罗哌卡因组(RP组),于L2~3、L3~4间隙行腰硬联合穿刺,蛛网膜下腔穿刺成功后于蛛网膜下腔分别注入0.5%的布比卡因或罗哌卡因10 mg,之后于硬膜外腔向头侧置管4 cm以备蛛网膜下腔阻滞不能满足手术需要时追加局麻药。观查并记录感觉阻滞平面,运动神经阻滞程度及血流动力学变化。结果两组病人血流动力学稳定,麻醉平面均能满足手术要求。BP组感觉平面高于RP组,RP组术后下肢运动恢复快于BP组。结论0.5%罗哌卡因、布比卡因10 mg用于腰硬联合麻醉可作为肛肠、部分下腹、下肢手术的麻醉选择;其中罗哌卡因术后下肢运动恢复快,较快恢复自主排尿为其优点。     

芬太尼对肛门直肠手术患者小剂量罗哌卡因腰麻效果的影响

目的 评价芬太尼对肛门直肠手术患者小剂量罗哌卡因腰麻效果的影响.方法 择期行肛门直肠手术患者40例,性别不限,年龄20 ～ 55岁,BMI 18～ 28 kg/m2,ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,采用随机数字表法,将患者分为2组(n=20):0.5％罗哌卡因7.5 mg组(R组)和0.3％罗哌卡因6.0 mg+芬太尼10 μg组(RF组).L3,4间隙行蛛网膜下腔穿刺,穿刺针斜面朝向骶尾部,R组注射重比重0.5％罗哌卡因1.5 ml,RF组注射重比重0.3％罗哌卡因6.0 mg+芬太尼10 μg混合液2.0 ml.记录感觉阻滞起效时间、最高感觉阻滞平面、感觉阻滞持续时间、运动阻滞起效时间和运动阻滞持续时间,记录术毕时改良Bromage评分.结果 与R组比较,RF组感觉阻滞持续时间和运动阻滞持续时间缩短,术毕时改良Bromage评分降低(P＜0.05或0.01);感觉阻滞起效时间、最高感觉阻滞平面、运动阻滞起效时间及不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 10 μg芬太尼混合0.3％罗哌卡因6mg腰麻可满足肛门直肠手术要求,运动神经的阻滞轻,恢复快.     

轻比重罗哌卡因单侧腰麻联合硬膜外麻醉用于高龄髋关节置换术中的镇痛效果

目的 观察不同剂量轻比重罗哌卡因单侧腰麻联合硬膜外麻醉用于高龄髋关节置换术患者的临床效果及对循环呼吸功能的影响.方法 选择70岁以上行人工髋关节置换术的患者90例,随机分为A、B、C 3组,每组30例.以0.1ml·s-1速度注入腰麻药(A组为轻比重0.5%罗哌卡因1.0ml,B组为轻比重0.5%罗哌卡因1.2ml,C组为轻比重0.5%罗哌卡因1.5ml).记录感觉阻滞起效时间、运动阻滞起效时间、最高阻滞平面、麻醉维持时间、感觉及运动恢复时间,用Bromage法评定下肢运动神经阻滞程度,并观察术中用药情况及不良反应.结果 3组患者在感觉阻滞起效时间、最高阻滞平面方面相比差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),A、B组的运动阻滞起效时间与C组相比显著延长(P＜0.05或P＜0.01).麻醉持续时间,感觉及运动恢复时间:C组＞B组＞A组(P＜0.05)或(P＜0.01).A组Bromage由3分恢复至0分时间和Bromage分级达3分者人数均低于B组、C组(P＜0.05).A组有3例10%需硬膜外给药.结论 轻比重0.5%罗哌卡因1.2ml(6mg)腰麻用于高龄髋关节置换术可达到完善的镇痛效果,不改变麻醉体位,对呼吸、循环干扰小,安全性高.     

不同剂量等比重罗哌卡因对老年患者腰麻阻滞平面的影响

目的 观察不同剂量0.5%等比重罗哌卡因用于老年患者腰麻对阻滞平面的影响.方法 65岁以上经尿道前列腺电切术患者160例随机分为四组,每组40例.A、B、C、D四组蛛网膜下腔分别注入0.5%等比重罗哌卡因7.5、10、12.5、15 mg.用针刺法测定感觉阻滞平面,用改良Bromage法评估下肢运动阻滞程度,比较四组患者的感觉和运动阻滞效果.结果 最高阻滞平面:D组＞C组＞B组＞A组.D组阻滞平面固定时间显著长于A组(P＜0.05).A、B组感觉阻滞消退时间短于C、D组(P＜0.01).结论 0.5%等比重罗哌卡因腰麻时局麻药剂量越大阻滞平面越高.老年患者经尿道前列腺电切术选择0.5%罗哌卡因10～12.5 mg为宜.     

罗哌卡因蛛网膜下腔阻滞在剖宫产术中的应用

目的观察不同浓度罗哌卡因用于蛛网膜下腔阻滞剖宫产术的麻醉效能、母婴安全和相关不良反应。方法采用随机双盲法,将60例剖宫产手术的足月单胎产妇均分为三组：0．5％罗哌卡因组（L1组）,0．75％罗哌卡因组（L2组）和0．5％布比卡因组（C组）。记录蛛网膜下腔阻滞后产妇的感觉阻滞和运动阻滞的起效和持续时间、麻醉质量评价、恶心呕吐等不良反应及术中HR、BP、SpO2和新生儿1min和5min Apgar评分。结果L1和L2组比C组起效慢,阻滞平面低,平面固定时间长。L2组感觉阻滞时间比L1组和C组长。L2组和C组肌松评分优于L1组。运动神经阻滞改良Bromage评分,L1组〈k组〈C组（P〈0．05）。三组术中低血压及其他不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义。结论0．75％罗哌卡因用于蛛网膜下腔阻滞剖宫产时,其麻醉效能弱于0．5％布比卡因,而强于0．5％罗哌卡因,三者均具有较好的安全性。     

氯普鲁卡因、布比卡因和罗哌卡因在下肢手术腰-硬联合麻醉中的比较

目的比较氯普鲁卡因、布比卡因和罗哌卡因在下肢手术腰-硬联合麻醉(CSEA)中的应用效果。方法择期行髋关节及以下部位手术患者300例,随机均分成三组:氯普鲁卡因组(C组)、布比卡因组(B组)和罗哌卡因组(R组),蛛网膜下腔分别给予1.5%氯普鲁卡因、0.5%布比卡因和0.5%罗哌卡因各2 ml。记录患者感觉阻滞起效时间、平面固定时间、阻滞平面、腰麻持续时间和运动阻滞效果。结果 C组阻滞平面固定时间、腰麻持续时间明显短于B、R组(P<0.05)。C组感觉阻滞起效时间短于B组,但长于R组(P<0.05)。C组最高阻滞平面明显高于B、R组(P<0.05)。结论与0.5%罗哌卡因和0.5%布比卡因比较,1.5%氯普鲁卡因具有起效快、阻滞完善和运动阻滞效果弱的特点,小剂量氯普鲁卡因可用于手术时间较短的CSEA中的脊麻。     

Ropivacain zur Spinalanästhesie Eine Dosisfindungsstudie

Several clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of ropivacaine in different regional anaesthesia techniques, e.g., epidural anaesthesia. However, the efficacy of ropivacaine for spinal anaesthesia has only been demonstrated in animal experiments up to now. The objective of this study was the investigation of the efficacy and appropriate dosage of isobaric ropivacaine for spinal anaesthesia in humans. Methods. In a randomised, double-blind study, spinal anaesthesia with ropivacaine was performed in two groups of 20 patients each (group I: ropivacaine 0.5%, 3?ml=15?mg; group II: ropivacaine 0.75%, 3?ml=22.5?mg). Spinal anaesthesia was performed with a 25?G needle in the midline at the L3–4 level with the patient sitting up, preceded by local infiltration of 2?ml mepivacaine 0.5%. Spread and regression of sensory block were assessed by testing loss of sensation to cold. Development of motor block was concurrently recorded by means of a modified Bromage scale (motor block was assessed in the hip, knee and ankle joints and recorded as complete or incomplete according to degree). The findings are presented as mean values. Results. Onset of analgesia to L5 and S1 was 2?min in both groups, and to T12 and T10 8 and 12.5?min, respectively, in group I and 12.5 and 13?min, respectively, in group II; these differences were not statistically significant. Mean maximum spread was to T10 in group I and T8 in group II. Onset of maximum cranial spread was 24?min in group I and 32?min in group II. Duration of analgesia in the segments relevant to the performed operations varied in group I between 1.5 and 5.7?h (S3 4.9, S1 5.7, L4 5.4, L2 3.0, T12 2.0, T10 1.6, T8 1.5?h) and in group II between 1.8 and 5.9?h (S3 5.4, S1 5.9, L4 5.7, L2 4.1, T12 2.9, T10 2.3, T8 1.8?h). These differences were significant in the segments S3, L3, L2, L1, T12, and T10. In 5 patients (20%) in group I adequate analgesia for the planned surgical intervention was not obtained. In 4 of these 5 patients the required spread of the spinal block was not reached; in 2 general anaesthesia had to be performed and in 2 the required analgesia could be obtained by administration of an analgesic (fentanyl). In the 5th patient the level of spinal block was sufficient for the planned operation, however, the quality of analgesia was not, i.e., additional analgesics were required. In the group that received the 0.75% solution additive analgesics were necessary in 1 patient (5%) because a sufficient level of anaesthesia for the planned operation was not obtained. In group I all patients had a complete motor block in all three joints (hip, knee, and ankle); in group II, however, the motor block was incomplete in 6 patients. This difference between the 2 groups was statistically significant. Onset of motor block of hip, knee, and ankle joints occurred after 10, 15, and 15?min, respectively, in group I and 10, 12, and 15?min, respectively, in group II. These differences were not statistically significant. Duration of motor block in the three joints was significantly longer (3.4, 2.8, and 3.8?h)in group II than in group I (2.4, 1.9, 2.7?h). Statistically significant changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressures (BP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded in both groups in the course of the study period. Relative BP changes were assessed in the individual patients. There were no statistically significant changes between the two groups with regard to relative changes in systolic and diastolic BP and HR. Bradycardia occurred a total of 13 times in 10 patients in group I and in 11 patients in group II. A BP decrease of >20% was measured in 1 patient in each group. Twelve of the 40 patients complained a headache in the first 6 days; in this respect the groups did not differ significantly. There was no difference between male and female patients with regard to side effect profile. Conclusion. At concentrations of 0.5% and 0.75%, ropivacaine results in long-lasting spinal anaesthesia. Duration of analgesia as well as duration and degree of motor block increase with the higher concentration. Neurotoxic effects of the local anaesthetic were not observed. A dose of 3?ml ropivacaine 0.75% seemed to be suitable for the gynaecologic and urologic operations (Table?3) with regard to efficacy of analgesia and local anaesthetic spread.     

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

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

Comparison of ropivacaine 0.5% (in glucose 5%) with bupivacaine 0.5% (in glucose 8%) for spinal anaesthesia for elective surgery

Background. Hyperbaric solutions of ropivacaine have been usedsuccessfully to provide spinal anaesthesia. This study was designedto compare the clinical efficacy of hyperbaric ropivacaine withthat of the commercially available hyperbaric preparation ofbupivacaine. Methods. Forty ASA grade I–II patients undergoing lower-abdominal,perineal or lower-limb surgery under spinal anaesthesia wererecruited and randomized to receive ropivacaine 5 mg ml^–1(with glucose 50 mg ml^–1), 3 ml or bupivacaine 5 mg ml^–1(with glucose 80 mg ml^–1), 3 ml. The level and durationof sensory block, intensity and duration of motor block, andtime to mobilize and micturate were recorded. Patients wereinterviewed at 24 h and at 1 week to identify any residual problems. Results. All blocks were adequate for the proposed surgery,but there were significant differences between the two groupsin mean time to onset of sensory block at T10 (ropivacaine 5min; bupivacaine 2 min; P<0.005), median maximum extent (ropivacaineT7; bupivacaine T5; P<0.005) and mean duration of sensoryblock at T10 (ropivacaine 56.5 min; bupivacaine 118 min; P=0.001).Patients receiving ropivacaine mobilized sooner (ropivacainemean 253.5 min; bupivacaine 331 min; P=0.002) and passed urinesooner (ropivacaine mean 276 min; bupivacaine 340.5 min; P=0.01)than those receiving bupivacaine. More patients in the bupivacainegroup required treatment for hypotension (>30% decrease insystolic pressure; P=0.001). Conclusions. Ropivacaine 15 mg in glucose 50 mg ml^–1 providesreliable spinal anaesthesia of shorter duration and with lesshypotension than bupivacaine. The recovery profile for ropivacainemay be of interest given that more surgery is being performedin the day-case setting. Br J Anaesth 2003; 90: 304–8     

Epidural ropivacaine 7.5 mg/ml for elective Caesarean section: A double-blind comparison of efficacy and tolerability with bupivacaine 5 mg/ml

BACKGROUND: Ropivacaine is a new local anaesthetic drug known to be less cardiotoxic than bupivacaine. The aims of this comparative study with bupivacaine were to evaluate efficacy, safety and tolerability for the mother and the neonate when using ropivacaine 7.5 mg/ml for epidural anaesthesia for elective Caesarean section. METHODS: In a double-blind, multicentre trial the patients were randomised to receive 20 ml of either ropivacaine 7.5 mg/ml or bupivacaine 5 mg/ml. The quality of the peroperative analgesia and abdominal muscle relaxation as well as tolerability and safety in both the mother and the neonate were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients were evaluated for efficacy and tolerability. There were no significant differences in the onset time and the extent of the sensory spread or motor block. The peroperative quality of anaesthesia and muscle relaxation was similar in both groups. No significant side effects were observed, except for a more profound drop in systolic blood pressure in the ropivacaine group. The anaesthetics were well tolerated by the neonate in both groups, evaluated by Apgar and NACS scores. CONCLUSION: Ropivacaine 7.5 mg/ml administered epidurally resulted in equally effective anaesthesia for Caesarean section as bupivacaine 5 mg/ml. Because of the lower cardiotoxicity of ropivacaine, the new amide has a potential in replacing bupivacaine when used epidurally for Caesarean section.     

Comparison of plain and hyperbaric solutions of ropivacaine for spinal anaesthesia

Background. Preliminary work has shown that ropivacaine providesspinal anaesthesia of shorter duration than bupivacaine, andmay be of particular use in the day-case setting. However, thereare few data comparing the actions of plain and hyperbaric solutionsof this drug. Methods. Forty ASA grade I–II patients undergoing electiveperineal surgery under spinal anaesthesia were randomized toreceive 3 ml ropivacaine 5 mg ml^–1, either in plain solutionor with glucose 50 mg ml^–1. The extent and duration ofsensory and motor block, pulse rate, blood pressure, and timeto mobilization were recorded. Results. Two patients (one per group) were withdrawn becauseof total block failure. There were significant differences inmedian time to onset of sensory block at T10 (plain 10 min;hyperbaric 5 min; P<0.01), median maximum extent (plain T8;hyperbaric T4; P<0.05), and median duration of sensory blockat T10 (plain 25 min; hyperbaric 115 min; P<0.001). However,median times to complete regression of both sensory (270 vs240 min; P<0.05) and motor (180 vs 120 min; P<0.001) blockwere longer in the plain group. Patients therefore mobilizedsooner in the hyperbaric group (218 [n=16] vs 286 min [n=17];P<0.01). All the hyperbaric blocks were adequate for surgery,but three patients receiving plain ropivacaine required generalanaesthesia. Conclusion. Addition of glucose 50 mg ml^–1 to ropivacaine5 mg ml^–1 increases the speed of onset, block reliability,duration of useful block for perineal surgery, and speed ofrecovery. Plain solutions are less reliable for surgery abovea dermatomal level of L1.      

Randomized double-blind comparison of ropivacaine-fentanyl and bupivacaine-fentanyl for spinal anaesthesia for urological surgery

BACKGROUND: Early studies have suggested that ropivacaine causes less motor block than bupivacaine, which might be advantageous in spinal anaesthesia for short procedures. The aim of this study was to compare plain ropivacaine 10 mg and plain bupivacaine 10 mg, both with fentanyl 15 microg, for spinal anaesthesia in urological surgery. Methods: This was a prospective randomized double-blind study. After written informed consent had been obtained, 34 ASA I-III patients scheduled for urological surgery were randomly assigned to receive intrathecal injection of either plain ropivacaine 10 mg with fentanyl 15 microg (ropivacaine group) or plain bupivacaine 10 mg with fentanyl 15 microg (bupivacaine group) using a combined spinal-epidural technique. RESULTS: All patients achieved sensory block to the T10 dermatome or higher at 15 min after intrathecal injection. One patient in the ropivacaine group was excluded because of unexpectedly prolonged surgery. The primary outcome, the duration of motor block, was shorter in the ropivacaine group (median, 126 min; interquartile range, 93-162 min) compared with the bupivacaine group (median, 189 min; interquartile range, 157-234 min; difference between medians, 71 min; 95% confidence interval, 28-109 min; P = 0.003). The duration of complete motor block was also shorter in the ropivacaine group compared with the bupivacaine group. There was no difference in the onset time of motor block. The characteristics of sensory block and the haemodynamic changes were similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: Plain ropivacaine 10 mg plus fentanyl 15 microg provided similar sensory anaesthesia, but with a shorter duration of motor block, compared with plain bupivacaine 10 mg plus fentanyl 15 microg when used for spinal anaesthesia in urological surgery.     

No difference between bupivacaine in 0.9% and 8% glucose for spinal anaesthesia in small children

BACKGROUND: Baricity is one of the most important factors to influence the characteristics of distribution of the local anaesthetic and hence success and spread of the blockade. Bupivacaine is rendered hyperbaric by adding glucose. The effect of differing degrees of hyperbaricity remains to be evaluated. METHODS: Two hyperbaric bupivacaine solutions, in 0.9% and in 8% glucose, for spinal anaesthesia were investigated in 60 children, aged 1-7 years, in a double-blind, randomised, parallel group, prospective study. The children were premedicated with diazepam orally. Bupivacaine 5 mg ml(-1) in either 0.9% or 8% glucose was injected in a dose of 0.4 mg kg(-1). Maximum cephalad extent and regression of sensory block were tested by transcutaneous electrical stimulation. RESULTS: Success rate, spread and duration of sensory block were similar in both groups. Only one child required a single dose of fentanyl during surgery. The highest median level of sensory block was T3 (T2-T7) (median (10th/90th percentiles)) in both groups. Time to reach T10 did not differ between the groups. The incidence of adverse effects was similar. Atropine was administered to one child in each group to treat bradycardia and 6 children (10%) experienced shivering. One child in each group vomited once. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that bupivacaine in 0.9% glucose and in 8% glucose solutions are equally suitable for spinal anaesthesia in small children. Similar success rate, spread and duration of the sensory and motor block are achieved with both baricities of bupivacaine.     

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。     

Spinal anesthesia: comparison of plain ropivacaine, bupivacaine and levobupivacaine for lower abdominal surgery

This study was performed to compare the anesthetic efficacy and safety of three local anesthetic agents: racemic bupivacaine and its two isomers: ropivacaine and levobupivacaine, in patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery. One hundred-twenty patients, ASA I-III, were randomized to receive an intrathecal injection of one of three local anesthetic solutions. Group A (n = 40) received 3 ml of isobaric bupivacaine 5 mg/ml (15 mg). Group B (n = 40) received 3 ml of isobaric ropivacaine 5 mg/ml (15 mg). Group C (n = 40) received 3 ml of isobaric levobupivacaine 5 mg/ml (15 mg). The onset and duration of sensory block at dermatome level T8, maximum upper spread of sensory block, time for 2-segment regression of sensory block as well as the onset, intensity and duration of motor block were recorded, as were any adverse effects, such as bradycardia, hypotension, hypoxia, tremor, nausea and/or vomiting. Time to unassisted standing up and voluntary micturition was also recorded. The onset of motor block was significantly faster in the bupivacaine group compared with that in the ropivacaine group and almost the same of that in the levobupivacaine group (P < 0.05). Ropivacaine presented a shorter duration of both motor and sensory block than bupivacaine and levobupivacaine (P < 0.05). Bupivacaine required more often the use of a vasoactive drug (ephedrine) compared to both ropivacaine and levobupivacaine and of a sympathomimetic drug (atropine) compared to the ropivacaine group.