BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Skin blood flow changes after intradermal injection of ropivacaine in various concentrations with or without epinephrine were investigated using laser Doppler flowmetry. METHODS:Twenty-three non-smoking, healthy, young male volunteers participated. Four test sites were used on each forearm (volar surface) in a randomized, double-blind study. Recordings were made at 20, 40, 60, and 90 minutes after intradermal injection (0.1 ml, 30-gauge needle). Injections of saline and 1% lidocaine and an untreated area served as controls. In Series 1, various concentrations of ropivacaine (1%, 0.5%, 0.375%, 0.125%, and 0.063%) were injected. RESULTS: The data from this series showed a dose-response relationship: 1% ropivacaine provoked an increase in skin blood flow similar to saline; 0.5% and weaker concentrations of ropivacaine showed a reduction in flow compared to saline, this being more pronounced with the weakest solutions (0.125% and 0.063%). In Series 2, injection of 1:200,000 (5 micrograms/ml) epinephrine alone and injections of ropivacaine in various concentrations (1%, 0.5%, and 0.25%) with addition of epinephrine were carried out. Injection of epinephrine alone showed a flow almost as low as at the untreated control sites. Ropivacaine epinephrine injections were followed by a lower skin blood flow compared to saline, but the flow was significantly larger compared to the effect of epinephrine itself at the 20-minute recording. CONCLUSION: The combination of ropivacaine and adrenaline did not accentuate but instead diminished the vasoconstrictive effect of epinephrine.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Skin blood flow changes after intradermal injection of ropivacaine in various concentrations with or without epinephrine were investigated using laser Doppler flowmetry. METHODS: Twenty-three non-smoking, healthy, young male volunteers participated. Four test sites were used on each forearm (volar surface) in a randomized, double-blind study. Recordings were made at 20, 40, 60, and 90 minutes after intradermal injection (0.1 ml, 30-gauge needle). Injections of saline and 1% lidocaine and an untreated area served as controls. In Series 1, various concentrations of ropivacaine (1%, 0.5%, 0.375%, 0.125%, and 0.063%) were injected. RESULTS: The data from this series showed a dose-response relationship: 1% ropivacaine provoked an increase in skin blood flow similar to saline; 0.5% and weaker concentrations of ropivacaine showed a reduction in flow compared to saline, this being more pronounced with the weakest solutions (0.125% and 0.063%). In Series 2, injection of 1:200,000 (5 micrograms/ml) epinephrine alone and injections of ropivacaine in various concentrations (1%, 0.5%, and 0.25%) with addition of epinephrine were carried out. Injection of epinephrine alone showed a flow almost as low as at the untreated control sites. Ropivacaine epinephrine injections were followed by a lower skin blood flow compared to saline, but the flow was significantly larger compared to the effect of epinephrine itself at the 20-minute recording. CONCLUSION: The combination of ropivacaine and adrenaline did not accentuate but instead diminished the vasoconstrictive effect of epinephrine.