What is it about?
Hyperbaric Bupivacaine (0.5% in Glucose 8%) for Spinal Anaesthesia for Lower Abdominal Surgery
Featured Image
Photo by Diana Polekhina on Unsplash
Why is it important?
Background: Spinal anaesthesia is well established technique in which several local anaesthetic drugs are used. These drugs have their own advantages and disadvantages regarding safety profile, onset and duration of action. The continuous search is going on to find safer drugs with having lesser side effects. Material and Method: This study was planned with an aim to compare Ropivacaine 0.5% in 5% glucose solution with the commercially available Bupivacaine 0.5% in glucose 8% (heavy) given in spinal anaesthesia regarding stability; onset and duration of sensory block; onset and duration of motor block and associated side effects like nausea/vomiting and pruritus. This was a prospective randomized double blind clinical control trial in which total 80 patients of either sex were enrolled and divided into two groups (Group A-Ropivacaine and Group B- Bupivacaine) using envelope method. Data Analysis: Data of both the groups were recorded and compared statistically. To compare the means, independent t-test was applied and to compare categorical data chi-square test was used. Result: As a result of the study it was found that hemodynamic parameters were comparable in both the groups; Onset of sensory as well as motor block were faster in the Bupivacaine group; total duration of motor block and sensory block was shorter in Ropivacaine group; time taken for mobilization was significantly lesser in Ropivacaine group; side effects like nausea/vomiting were also less in Ropivacaine group. Conclusion: It can be concluded that Ropivacaine 0.5% in 5% glucose is a good alternate to Bupivacaine heavy in short duration lower abdominal surgeries with shorter sensory and motor block duration and lesser incidence of adverse effects.
Perspectives
Background: Spinal anaesthesia is well established technique in which several local anaesthetic drugs are used. These drugs have their own advantages and disadvantages regarding safety profile, onset and duration of action. The continuous search is going on to find safer drugs with having lesser side effects. Material and Method: This study was planned with an aim to compare Ropivacaine 0.5% in 5% glucose solution with the commercially available Bupivacaine 0.5% in glucose 8% (heavy) given in spinal anaesthesia regarding stability; onset and duration of sensory block; onset and duration of motor block and associated side effects like nausea/vomiting and pruritus. This was a prospective randomized double blind clinical control trial in which total 80 patients of either sex were enrolled and divided into two groups (Group A-Ropivacaine and Group B- Bupivacaine) using envelope method. Data Analysis: Data of both the groups were recorded and compared statistically. To compare the means, independent t-test was applied and to compare categorical data chi-square test was used. Result: As a result of the study it was found that hemodynamic parameters were comparable in both the groups; Onset of sensory as well as motor block were faster in the Bupivacaine group; total duration of motor block and sensory block was shorter in Ropivacaine group; time taken for mobilization was significantly lesser in Ropivacaine group; side effects like nausea/vomiting were also less in Ropivacaine group. Conclusion: It can be concluded that Ropivacaine 0.5% in 5% glucose is a good alternate to Bupivacaine heavy in short duration lower abdominal surgeries with shorter sensory and motor block duration and lesser incidence of adverse effects.
Red Flower Publication Publications
Red Flower Publication Pvt Ltd
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: A Comparative Study of Hyperbaric Ropivacaine (0.5% in Glucose 5%) with Hyperbaric Bupivacaine (0.5% in Glucose 8%) for Spinal Anaesthesia for Lower Abdominal Surgery, Indian Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia, January 2019, Red Flower Publication Private, Ltd.,
DOI: 10.21088/ijaa.2349.8471.6419.8.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
