Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (54)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by GRIFFIN, R. P.
Right arrow Articles by REYNOLDS, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by GRIFFIN, R. P.
Right arrow Articles by REYNOLDS, F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 1995, Vol. 74, No. 5 512-516
© 1995 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

research-article

Extradural anaesthesia for Caesarean section: a double-blind comparison of 0.5% ropivacaine with 0.5% bupivacaine

R. P. GRIFFIN, FRCA* and F. REYNOLDS, MD, FRCA

Division of Anaesthetics, UMDS, St Thomas' Hospital London SE1 7EH

*Present address for correspondence: Department of Anaesthetics, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton BN2 5BE

Seventy-three parturients for elective Caesarean section were allocated randomly to receive extradural block with 20 ml of either 0.5% ropivacaine or 0.5% bupivacaine. If the block did not reach T6 within 30 mm, another 5 ml of solution was given. If needed, a further 5 ml was given 45 mm after the main dose. The mean total dose of bupivacaine was 23.1 ml (n = 35) and of ropivacaine 23.7 ml (n = 37). There was no significant difference between the groups in the profile of sensory block produced. There was no significant difference in the time of onset, or intensity of motor block between the groups but the duration of motor block was significantly shorter in the ropivacaine group. There was no significant difference in neonatal outcome, as assessed by Apgar score, umbilical cord bloodgas tensions at delivery or the neurological and adaptive capacity score 2 and 24 h after delivery. (Br. J. Anaesth. 1995; 74: 512–516)


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
H. J. Lacassie and M. O. Columb
The Relative Motor Blocking Potencies of Bupivacaine and Levobupivacaine in Labor
Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2003; 97(5): 1509 - 1513.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
Y. Pouzeratte, J. M. Delay, G. Brunat, G. Boccara, C. Vergne, S. Jaber, J. M. Fabre, P. Colson, and C. Mann
Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia After Abdominal Surgery: Ropivacaine Versus Bupivacaine
Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2001; 93(6): 1587 - 1592.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
J. B. Whiteside and J. A. W. Wildsmith
Developments in local anaesthetic drugs
Br. J. Anaesth., July 1, 2001; 87(1): 27 - 35.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
C.-J. Chung, S.-R. Choi, K.-H. Yeo, H.-S. Park, S.-I. Lee, and Y.-J. Chin
Hyperbaric Spinal Ropivacaine for Cesarean Delivery: A Comparison to Hyperbaric Bupivacaine
Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2001; 93(1): 157 - 161.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
A. Junca, E. Marret, G. Goursot, X. Mazoit, and F. Bonnet
A Comparison of Ropivacaine and Bupivacaine for Cervical Plexus Block
Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2001; 92(3): 720 - 724.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
A. Oda, H. Ohashi, S. Komori, H. Iida, and S. Dohi
Characteristics of Ropivacaine Block of Na+ Channels in Rat Dorsal Root Ganglion Neurons
Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2000; 91(5): 1213 - 1220.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.