What is it about?

Adult Patients Undergoing Major Lower Abdominal Surgeries: A Double Blind Randomized Control Study

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Context: In view of the wider application of regional anesthetic procedure in modern anaesthesia practice, there is a need for local anesthetic with desirable properties like longer duration of sensory blockade for post operative analgesia and moderate duration of motor paralysis for surgical relaxation. Null hypothesis: Epidurally administered 20 ml of 0.75% Ropivacaine is not effective in comparison to 20 ml of 0.5% Bupivacaine for major lower abdominal surgeries in adult patients. Aims: To study the efficacy of epidurally administered 20 ml of 0.75% Ropivacaine in comparison to 20 ml of 0.5% Bupivacaine for major lower abdominal surgeries in adult patients. Settings and design: Hospital based double blind randomized controlled study carried out at Department of Anesthesiology, Shadan Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad. Methods: 50 eligible patients were included. They were divided into two groups of 25 each randomly. Group R with 25 patients were given 20 ml of 0.75% Ropivacaine epidurally. Group B with 25 patients were given 20 ml of 0.5% Bupivacaine epidurally. Results: There was no statistically significant difference among the two groups in terms of duration, quality and onset of sensory as well as motor blockade. Post operative analgesia duration was also similar among them. Two groups did not differ significantly in terms of side effects and hemodynamic stability. (p value > 0.05; statistically insignificant). Conclusion: Our study concluded that 20 ml of 0.75% epidural Ropivacaine produced equally effective and good quality as well as duration of sensory and motor blockade and post operative analgesia when compared to 20 ml of 0.5% epidural Bupivacaine for various lower abdominal surgeries.

Perspectives

Context: In view of the wider application of regional anesthetic procedure in modern anaesthesia practice, there is a need for local anesthetic with desirable properties like longer duration of sensory blockade for post operative analgesia and moderate duration of motor paralysis for surgical relaxation. Null hypothesis: Epidurally administered 20 ml of 0.75% Ropivacaine is not effective in comparison to 20 ml of 0.5% Bupivacaine for major lower abdominal surgeries in adult patients. Aims: To study the efficacy of epidurally administered 20 ml of 0.75% Ropivacaine in comparison to 20 ml of 0.5% Bupivacaine for major lower abdominal surgeries in adult patients. Settings and design: Hospital based double blind randomized controlled study carried out at Department of Anesthesiology, Shadan Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad. Methods: 50 eligible patients were included. They were divided into two groups of 25 each randomly. Group R with 25 patients were given 20 ml of 0.75% Ropivacaine epidurally. Group B with 25 patients were given 20 ml of 0.5% Bupivacaine epidurally. Results: There was no statistically significant difference among the two groups in terms of duration, quality and onset of sensory as well as motor blockade. Post operative analgesia duration was also similar among them. Two groups did not differ significantly in terms of side effects and hemodynamic stability. (p value > 0.05; statistically insignificant). Conclusion: Our study concluded that 20 ml of 0.75% epidural Ropivacaine produced equally effective and good quality as well as duration of sensory and motor blockade and post operative analgesia when compared to 20 ml of 0.5% epidural Bupivacaine for various lower abdominal surgeries.

Red Flower Publication Publications
Red Flower Publication Pvt Ltd

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: Efficacy of Epidural 0.75% Ropivacaine vs. Epidural 0.5% Bupivacaine for Adult Patients undergoing Major Lower Abdominal Surgeries: A Double Blind Randomized Control Study, Indian Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia, January 2018, Red Flower Publication Private, Ltd.,
DOI: 10.21088/ijaa.2349.8471.5718.20.
You can read the full text:

Read

Contributors

The following have contributed to this page