Skip Navigation



BJA Advance Access published online on September 2, 2008
British Journal of Anaesthesia, doi:10.1093/bja/aen250
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
101/5/705    most recent
aen250v1
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow E-letters: View responses
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 arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Luck, J. F.
Right arrow Articles by Wildsmith, J. A. W.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Luck, J. F.
Right arrow Articles by Wildsmith, J. A. W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2008. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Spinal anaesthesia for elective surgery: a comparison of hyperbaric solutions of racemic bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, and ropivacaine

J. F. Luck{dagger},*, P. D. W. Fettes{dagger} and J. A. W. Wildsmith{dagger}

University Department of Anaesthesia, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK

* Corresponding author. E-mail: johnfluck{at}gmail.com

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical effects of ‘hyperbaric’ bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia with those of similar preparations of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine.

Methods: Sixty ASA grade I–II patients undergoing elective surgery under spinal anaesthesia were randomized to receive 3 ml of bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, or ropivacaine, each at 5 mg ml–1 and made hyperbaric by the addition of glucose 30 mg ml–1. A standard protocol was followed after which a blinded observer assessed the sensory and motor blocks. The level and duration of sensory (pinprick) block, intensity and duration of motor block, and time to mobilize and to micturate were also recorded.

Results: One patient (ropivacaine group) required general anaesthesia because of technical failure, but all the other blocks were adequate. There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to the mean time to onset of sensory block at T10, the extent of spread, or mean time to maximum spread. Regression of sensory block in the ropivacaine group was more rapid as demonstrated by duration at T10 (P<0.0167) and total duration of sensory block (P<0.0167). Patients in the ropivacaine group had more rapid recovery from motor block (P<0.0167) and shorter times to independent mobilization (P<0.0167). There were no significant differences between the bupivacaine and the levobupivacaine groups.

Conclusions: ‘Hyperbaric’ ropivacaine provides reliable spinal anaesthesia of shorter duration than bupivacaine or levobupivacaine, both of which are clinically indistinguishable. The recovery profile of ropivacaine may be useful where prompt mobilization is required.

Keywords: anaesthetic techniques, subarachnoid; anaesthetics local, bupivacaine; anaesthetics local, levobupivacaine; anaesthetics local, ropivacaine

{dagger} Declaration of interest. AstraZeneca have provided salary support for Drs Luck and Fettes and made consultancy payments to Professor Wildsmith.


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


E-letters:

Read all E-letters

spinal anaesthesia
R S SOMAIYA
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 3 Nov 2008 [Full text]
Spinal anaesthesia for elective surgery: a comparison of hyperbaric solutions of racemic bupivacaine
John F Luck
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 5 Dec 2008 [Full text]

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.