S B McDonald1, S S Liu, D J Kopacz, C A Stephenson. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Virginia Mason Medical Center and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle 98111, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Ropivacaine is a newly introduced local anesthetic that may be a useful alternative to low-dose bupivacaine for outpatient spinal anesthesia. However, its relative potency to bupivacaine and its dose-response characteristics are unknown. This double-blind, randomized, crossover study was designed to determine relative potencies of low-dose hyperbaric spinal ropivacaine and bupivacaine and to assess the suitability of spinal ropivacaine for outpatient anesthesia. METHODS:Eighteen healthy volunteers were randomized into three equal groups to receive one spinal administration with bupivacaine and a second with ropivacaine, of equal-milligram doses (4, 8, or 12 mg) of 0.25% drug with 5% dextrose. The duration of blockade was assessed with (1) pinprick, (2) transcutaneous electrical stimulation, (3) tolerance to high tourniquet, (4) electromyography and isometric force dynamometry, and (5) achievement of discharge criteria. Differences between ropivacaine and bupivacaine were assessed with linear and multiple regression. P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS:Ropivacaine and bupivacaine provided dose-dependent prolongation of sensory and motor block and time until achievement of discharge criteria (R2 ranges from 0.33-0.99; P values from < 0.001 through 0.01). Spinal anesthesia with ropivacaine was significantly different from bupivacaine and was approximately half as potent for all criteria studied. A high incidence of back pain (28%; P = 0.098) was noted after intrathecal ropivacaine was given. CONCLUSION:Ropivacaine is half as potent and in equipotent doses has a similar profile to bupivacaine with a higher incidence of side effects. Low-dose hyperbaric spinal ropivacaine does not appear to offer an advantage over bupivacaine for use in outpatient anesthesia.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Ropivacaine is a newly introduced local anesthetic that may be a useful alternative to low-dose bupivacaine for outpatient spinal anesthesia. However, its relative potency to bupivacaine and its dose-response characteristics are unknown. This double-blind, randomized, crossover study was designed to determine relative potencies of low-dose hyperbaric spinal ropivacaine and bupivacaine and to assess the suitability of spinal ropivacaine for outpatient anesthesia. METHODS: Eighteen healthy volunteers were randomized into three equal groups to receive one spinal administration with bupivacaine and a second with ropivacaine, of equal-milligram doses (4, 8, or 12 mg) of 0.25% drug with 5% dextrose. The duration of blockade was assessed with (1) pinprick, (2) transcutaneous electrical stimulation, (3) tolerance to high tourniquet, (4) electromyography and isometric force dynamometry, and (5) achievement of discharge criteria. Differences between ropivacaine and bupivacaine were assessed with linear and multiple regression. P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS:Ropivacaine and bupivacaine provided dose-dependent prolongation of sensory and motor block and time until achievement of discharge criteria (R2 ranges from 0.33-0.99; P values from < 0.001 through 0.01). Spinal anesthesia with ropivacaine was significantly different from bupivacaine and was approximately half as potent for all criteria studied. A high incidence of back pain (28%; P = 0.098) was noted after intrathecal ropivacaine was given. CONCLUSION:Ropivacaine is half as potent and in equipotent doses has a similar profile to bupivacaine with a higher incidence of side effects. Low-dose hyperbaric spinal ropivacaine does not appear to offer an advantage over bupivacaine for use in outpatient anesthesia.
Authors: T Koch; A Fichtner; U Schwemmer; T Standl; T Volk; K Engelhard; M F Stevens; C Putzke; J Scholz; M Zenz; J Motsch; V Hempel; A Heinrichs; B Zwissler Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 1.041
Authors: Henning Hermanns; Elke M E Bos; Mark L van Zuylen; Markus W Hollmann; Markus F Stevens Journal: CNS Drugs Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 6.497