BACKGROUND: Since prilocaine is being increasingly used for day case surgery as a short acting local anaesthetic for spinal anaesthesia and because of its low risk for transient neurological symptoms, we compared it to bupivacaine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n=88) who were scheduled for lower limb surgery with spinal anaesthesia randomly received 15 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% or 60 mg hyperbaric prilocaine 2% (administered in a sitting position). Onset time, intensity, duration of the sensomotoric block, vital parameters and time of spontaneous miction were recorded and patients were questioned on satisfaction with the anaesthesia procedure and the occurrence of adverse side-effects after 24 h. RESULTS:Bupivacaine caused a significantly higher sensory block than prilocaine (T6 vs. T8). Both groups were similar in reaching an analgesic level of at least T12, block intensity and onset times. Median analgesic levels at T12 were maintained for 60 min with prilocaine versus 120 min with bupivacaine, regression of the motor block was 135 min versus 210 min, sensory block S1 was 240 min versus 360 min, and time for spontaneous miction was 306 min versus 405 min, respectively (differences for all comparisons were statistically significant). CONCLUSION: Under the present study conditions, hyperbaric prilocaine 2% was superior to hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% due to a shorter effect profile but otherwise equivalent quality of block. However, puncture in a sitting position and positioning with elevated torso for restriction of the cranial expansion of block spread might cause an enhanced sacral block with delayed recovery of bladder function.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Since prilocaine is being increasingly used for day case surgery as a short acting local anaesthetic for spinal anaesthesia and because of its low risk for transient neurological symptoms, we compared it to bupivacaine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n=88) who were scheduled for lower limb surgery with spinal anaesthesia randomly received 15 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% or 60 mg hyperbaric prilocaine 2% (administered in a sitting position). Onset time, intensity, duration of the sensomotoric block, vital parameters and time of spontaneous miction were recorded and patients were questioned on satisfaction with the anaesthesia procedure and the occurrence of adverse side-effects after 24 h. RESULTS:Bupivacaine caused a significantly higher sensory block than prilocaine (T6 vs. T8). Both groups were similar in reaching an analgesic level of at least T12, block intensity and onset times. Median analgesic levels at T12 were maintained for 60 min with prilocaine versus 120 min with bupivacaine, regression of the motor block was 135 min versus 210 min, sensory block S1 was 240 min versus 360 min, and time for spontaneous miction was 306 min versus 405 min, respectively (differences for all comparisons were statistically significant). CONCLUSION: Under the present study conditions, hyperbaric prilocaine 2% was superior to hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% due to a shorter effect profile but otherwise equivalent quality of block. However, puncture in a sitting position and positioning with elevated torso for restriction of the cranial expansion of block spread might cause an enhanced sacral block with delayed recovery of bladder function.