Dataset Information

Isobaric forms of ropivacaine vs. bupivacaine in lower abdominal surgeries: a hospital-based, prospective, comparative study.

ABSTRACT: We aimed to assess whether ropivacaine (0.75%; 22.5 mg) can replace bupivacaine (0.5%; 15 mg) as a better intrathecal anesthetic in lower abdominal surgery. In this hospital-based, single-blind, randomized, prospective, comparative study, 100 patients of either sex, aged between 18 and 70 years, weighing 40-80 kg, with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 and 2, and undergoing lower abdominal surgery were randomly allocated into two groups to receive intrathecal isobaric bupivacaine 0.5% 3 mL (15 mg) or ropivacaine 0.75% 3 mL (22.5 mg). In the intraoperative period, the onset, efficacy, duration, and regression of sensory and motor blockade and the quality of anesthesia and hemodynamic effects were observed at regular intervals. The ropivacaine and bupivacaine groups were comparable for demographic parameters. The duration of onset of sensory and motor blocks was significantly shorter in the bupivacaine group (P < 0.01). In the ropivacaine group, a faster recovery from sensory block (P = 0.02) and higher segmental height [thoracic (T)10 and T8] were achieved (P < 0.01). Bradycardia and hypotension were insignificant in the ropivacaine group (P > 0.05). Isobaric ropivacaine is a better spinal anesthetic in lower abdominal surgeries as it provides faster recovery from sensory block and a higher level of segmental sensory block with fewer side-effects.

SUBMITTER: Patil P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9979211 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul-Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Isobaric forms of ropivacaine <i>vs</i>. bupivacaine in lower abdominal surgeries: a hospital-based, prospective, comparative study.

Patil Pavitra P Dhulkhed Pavan Vithal PV Dhulkhed Vithal K VK

Medical gas research 20230701 3

We aimed to assess whether ropivacaine (0.75%; 22.5 mg) can replace bupivacaine (0.5%; 15 mg) as a better intrathecal anesthetic in lower abdominal surgery. In this hospital-based, single-blind, randomized, prospective, comparative study, 100 patients of either sex, aged between 18 and 70 years, weighing 40-80 kg, with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 and 2, and undergoing lower abdominal surgery were randomly allocated into two groups to receive intrathecal isobaric bupiv ...[more]

PMID: 36571377

Similar Datasets

Project description:Various advantages of isobaric bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, and hyperbaric bupivacaine are described. There are no studies reliably determining the benefits of these forms of bupivacaine. The purpose of the study was to compare the efficacy of spinal anesthesia (SA) performed with 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine, 0.5% levobupivacaine, and 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. The clinical study was approved by the ethics committee. The sample size was calculated for a confidence level of 99%. 111 patients were randomly allocated into 3 equal groups for spinal anesthesia in lower limb surgeries. In group 1 (1B) spinal anesthesia was performed with 3 ml of 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine (n = 37); in group 2 (2L)-3 ml of 0.5% levobupivacaine (n = 37), in group 3 (3H)-3 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (n = 37). The criterion for assessing the effectiveness of anesthesia was the need to switch to another type of anesthesia (criterion-no anesthesia), or the need for additional use of narcotic analgesics or local anesthesia during surgery (criterion-reporting of painful feelings during the operation). In 1B anesthesia efficiency by the criterion of additional intraoperative analgesia was 100% (37 patients; 95% CI [0.88-1.0]); 2L-86.4%; (31 patients; 95% CI [0.68-0.92]); 3H-72.9% (27 patients; 95% CI [0.56-0.84]). There were significant differences between groups 1B and 2L: p < 0.05 (p = 0.0104). There were no significant differences between groups 2L and 3H (p = 0.2587). All patients in group 1B developed complete sensory block (++) within 4 (3; 5) min. In group 2L complete sensory block developed in 34 patients (89.4%) within 9 (5; 14) min, in group 3H sensory block developed in all patients within 3 (2.5; 4). The duration of analgesia period between 1B and 2L did not statistically differ (p = 0.73). In 3H the duration of analgesia was 170 (150; 200) min. The study found 83.7% efficacy of levobupivacaine and 72.9% efficacy of hyperbaric bupivacaine in comparison with isobaric bupivacaine (100%) when administered intrathecally in equal volumes and amounts (by the criterion of additional intraoperative analgesia).Trial registration: NCT05184465 (Initial Release: 12/01/2021; date of first publication-11/01/2022).

Project description:ObjectiveSeveral modalities for analgesia after laparoscopic procedures have been used. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of early versus late bupivacaine/tramadol combination and bupivacaine/dexmedetomidine combination in analgesia for laparoscopic cancer surgeries.MethodsA total of 100 patients of both genders scheduled for elective laparoscopic cancer surgeries were included. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four groups each comprises 25 patients. Group 1: early bupivacaine/tramadol, Group 2: late bupivacaine/tramadol, Group 3: early bupivacaine/dexmedetomidine, and Group 4: late bupivacaine/dexmedetomidine. Early groups received the intraperitoneal instillation before start of surgery and late groups received the instillation after completion of surgery. Perioperative heart rate (HR) and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) were recorded. The degree of postoperative pain was measured at rest and with cough using Visual analogue scale (VAS) score at 2, 4, 6, 12, 18 and 24 h after surgery. In addition, the total intraoperative fentanyl and postoperative morphine doses were calculated.ResultsBoth late bupivacaine/tramadol, bupivacaine/dexmedetomidine groups had longer time to receive first analgesic requirement (13.4±3.9, 11.3±3.9 h) respectively as compared to early bupivacaine/tramadol, bupivacaine/dexmedetomidine groups (9.8± 3.6, 8.4± 2.8 h), respectively. Between each early and late group, intraoperative fentanyl consumption was higher for the late groups (75± 22.8, 73± 21.55µg) versus (32.7± 10.9, 37.5± 13.3 µg), respectively. As regards to rescue analgesic requirements, both early bupivacaine/tramadol and bupivacaine/dexmedetomidine groups consumed more analgesics (5.2± 2.0 and 6.1± 1.8 mg) as compared to the late groups (3.2± 0.8 and 4.3± 1.5 mg), respectively. The four groups were comparable for their perioperative HR and MAP values.ConclusionIntraperitoneal instillation of bupivacaine/tramadol and bupivacaine/dexmedetomidine could be considered an effective route for analgesic administration during laparoscopic cancer surgeries. Early instillation reduced the intraoperative opioid consumption and late instillation resulted in reduced postoperative opioid consumption.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04813016.

Project description:Caudal analgesia is a good, reliable, and easy method to provide intraoperative and postoperative analgesia for infra-umbilical surgeries in children. Many additives are being used in combination with local anesthetics in caudal block to prolong the postoperative analgesia (clonidine, midazolam, ketamine, fentanyl, and dexmedetomidine). The purpose of this study was to compare the intraoperative hemodynamics, postoperative analgesia, postoperative rescue analgesic requirement, postoperative sedation and side-effects of clonidine and midazolam used as adjuvants to bupivacaine for caudal analgesia.Following approval from Institutional Ethical Research Committee, 75 American Society of Anesthesiologists I and II patients aged between 1 and 7 years undergoing various elective infra-umbilical surgical procedures were included in this study. The patients were randomly allocated into three groups of 25 patients each. Group B received 1 ml/kg 0.25% bupivacaine in normal saline, Group BC received 1 ml/kg 0.25% bupivacaine + 1 μg/kg clonidine in normal saline, and Group BM received 1ml/kg 0.25% bupivacaine + 30 μg/kg midazolam in normal saline. The various parameters studied were intraoperative hemodynamic changes, duration of postoperative analgesia, postoperative sedation, postoperative analgesic requirement, and incidence of side-effects.All the groups were similar with respect to patient and block characteristics. The hemodynamic parameters before and after administering caudal analgesia were also comparable. The mean duration of analgesia was 724.80 ± 60.29 min in Group BC, 605.40 ± 82.37 min in Group BM and 295.00 ± 41.78 min in Group B. Thus, the duration of analgesia was significantly prolonged in Group BC compared to Groups BM and B. The FLACC pain score was higher in Group B at the end of 4th, 8th and 12th h compared with Group BC and Group BM. Furthermore at the end of 12th h, pain scores were significantly higher in Group BM compared to Group BC. Only 1 child in Group BC received three rescue medications compared to 15 (60%) children in Group B and 7 (28%) children in Group BM. None of the groups were treated for bradycardia or hypotension and no significant sedation was noted.This study showed that the addition of both clonidine (1 μg/kg) and midazolam (30 μg/kg) with bupivacaine administered caudally significantly increase the duration of postoperative analgesia with minimal side-effects in children. The use of clonidine as an additive to bupivacaine in caudal epidural is a superior choice to midazolam as it reduces the demand of postoperative rescue analgesics significantly.

Project description:BackgroundAdministration of adjuvant drugs epidurally in combination with local anesthetics offers new dimensions in the management of postoperative pain. This study aimed to compare the addition of either nalbuphine or dexmedetomidine to epidural bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia in lower limb orthopedic surgeries under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia.MethodsThis prospective randomized double-blind study included 69 patients scheduled for lower limb orthopedic surgeries. Anesthesia was started with 15 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% intrathecally, and then an epidural bolus dose of 12 ml (10 ml 0.25% bupivacaine with 2 ml normal saline in group C, 2 ml (10 mg) nalbuphine in group N or dexmedetomidine 2 ml (100 µg) in group D was administered when sensory regression to T10. Postoperatively, when visual analogue scale (VAS) was ≥ 3, an epidural top-up dose of 8 ml (6 ml 0.25% bupivacaine plus 2 ml normal saline in group C, 2 ml (2 mg) nalbuphine in group N or 20 µg dexmedetomidine (2 ml) in group D was given. The primary outcome was to evaluate the duration of postoperative analgesia and secondary outcomes were any side effects and patient satisfaction.ResultsThe onset of epidural analgesia was 17.83 ± 2.53 versus 13.39 ± 1.27 versus 12.17 ± 1.27 min in groups C, N and D, respectively (p value < 0.001). The mean duration of analgesia was 241.3 ± 14.24 versus 318.38 ± 22.54 versus 365.87 ± 18.01 min in groups C, N and D, respectively (p value < 0.001). The mean sedation score was less in group C than group N and D (P < 0.001). The patient satisfaction score showed the lowest degree of satisfaction in group C (p value < 0.001). Top-up doses consumed and total analgesic requirements were lower in groups N and D than in group C. There was a statistically significant difference between the studied groups regarding VAS over time (p value < 0.001), intraoperative bradycardia (p value 0.029), and shivering (p value 0.029).ConclusionThe addition of either nalbuphine or dexmedetomidine to epidural bupivacaine was effective for postoperative analgesia in terms of onset, duration, and patient satisfaction with the superiority of dexmedetomidine over nalbuphine.Trial registrationApproval from the research ethics committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University was obtained with the reference number (ZU-IRB#:7045-15-8-2021) and it was registered under clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05041270) on registration date 13/09/2021.

Project description:BackgroundAs posterior lumbosacral spine fixation surgeries are common spine procedures done nowadays due to different causes and mostly accompanied with moderate-to-severe postoperative pain, so should find effective postoperative analgesia for these patients. This study aimed to observe analgesic effect of dexmedetomidine combined with bupivacaine versus bupivacaine alone for erector spinae plane block ESPB for postoperative pain control of posterior lumbosacral spine fixation surgeries.MethodsDouble-blind randomized controlled study including 90 patients who were randomly allocated into 3 groups (30 patients for each): Dexmedetomidine combined with bupivacaine (DB group), bupivacaine (B group), and saline (control) (S group). US-guided ESPB was performed preoperatively bilaterally in all patients of the 3 groups. All patients received intravenous patient-controlled postoperative analgesia with morphine and 1 gm intravenous paracetamol every 8 hours. Primary clinical outcomes were active (while mobilization) and passive (at rest) visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at first 24 hours measured every 2 hours, opioid consumption (number of PCA presses), and need for rescue analgesia. Other clinical outcomes included active and passive VAS pain score at second 24 hours, measured every 4 hours, opioid consumption, need for rescue analgesia, postoperative opioid side effects, and intraoperative dexmedetomidine side effects as bradycardia and hypotension.ResultsActive and passive VAS pain scores, postoperative opioid consumption, need for rescue analgesia, and postoperative opioid side effects were significantly lower in DB group when compared to other groups (B and S groups). There were no additional intraoperative dexmedetomidine side effects as bradycardia and hypotension. The estimated effect-size r was -0.58 and Cohen's d was -1.46.ConclusionAddition of dexmedetomidine to bupivacaine 0.25% in ESPB for postoperative pain control in patients of posterior lumbosacral spine fixation surgeries resulted in lower active and passive VAS pain scores, decreased postoperative opioid consumption, need for rescue analgesia and postoperative opioid side effects without additional intraoperative dexmedetomidine side effects.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT05590234.

Dataset Information

Isobaric forms of ropivacaine vs. bupivacaine in lower abdominal surgeries: a hospital-based, prospective, comparative study.

Publications

Isobaric forms of ropivacaine <i>vs</i>. bupivacaine in lower abdominal surgeries: a hospital-based, prospective, comparative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets