Literature DB >> 8967586

[Ropivacaine for spinal anesthesia. A dose-finding study].

W Wahedi1, H Nolte, P Klein.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Several clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of ropivacaine in different regional anaesthesia techniques, e.g., epidural anaesthesia. However, the efficacy of ropivacaine for spinal anaesthesia has only been demonstrated in animal experiments up to now. The objective of this study was the investigation of the efficacy and appropriate dosage of isobaric ropivacaine for spinal anaesthesia in humans.
METHODS: In a randomised, double-blind study, spinal anaesthesia with ropivacaine was performed in two groups of 20 patients each (group I: ropivacaine 0.5%, 3 ml = 15 mg; group II: ropivacaine 0.75%, 3 ml = 22.5 mg). Spinal anaesthesia was performed with a 25 G needle in the midline at the L3-4 level with the patient sitting up, preceded by local infiltration of 2 ml mepivacaine 0.5%. Spread and regression of sensory block were assessed by testing loss of sensation to cold. Development of motor block was concurrently recorded by means of a modified Bromage scale (motor block was assessed in the hip, knee and ankle joints and recorded as complete or incomplete according to degree). The findings are presented as mean values.
RESULTS: Onset of analgesia to L5 and S1 was 2 min in both groups, and to T12 and T10 8 and 12.5 min, respectively, in group I and 12.5 and 13 min, respectively, in group II; these differences were not statistically significant. Mean maximum spread was to T10 in group I and T8 in group II. Onset of maximum cranial spread was 24 min in group I and 32 min in group II. Duration of analgesia in the segments relevant to the performed operations varied in group I between 1.5 and 5.7 h (S3 4.9, S1 5.7, L4 5.4, L2 3.0, T12 2.0, T10 1.6, T8 1.5 h) and in group II between 1.8 and 5.9 h (S3 5.4, S1 5.9, L4 5.7, L2 4.1, T12 2.9, T10 2.3, T8 1.8 h). These differences were significant in the segments S3, L3, L2, L1, T12, and T10. In 5 patients (20%) in group I adequate analgesia for the planned surgical intervention was not obtained. In 4 of these 5 patients the required spread of the spinal block was not reached; in 2 general anaesthesia had to be performed and in 2 the required analgesia could be obtained by administration of an analgesic (fentanyl). In the 5th patient the level of spinal block was sufficient for the planned operation, however, the quality of analgesia was not, i.e., additional analgesics were required. In the group that received the 0.75% solution additive analgesics were necessary in 1 patient (5%) because a sufficient level of anaesthesia for the planned operation was not obtained. In group I all patients had a complete motor block in all three joints (hip, knee, and ankle); in group II, however, the motor block was incomplete in 6 patients. This difference between the 2 groups was statistically significant. Onset of motor block of hip, knee, and ankle joints occurred after 10, 15, and 15 min, respectively, in group I and 10, 12 and 15 min, respectively, in group II. These differences were not statistically significant. Duration of motor block in the three joints was significantly longer (3.4, 2.8, and 3.8 h) in group II than in group I (2.4, 1.9, 2.7 h). Statistically significant changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressures (BP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded in both groups in the course of the study period. Relative BP changes were assessed in the individual patients. There were no statistically significant changes between the two groups with regard to relative changes in systolic and diastolic BP and HR. Bradycardia occurred a total of 13 times in 10 patients in group I and in 11 patients in group II. A BP decrease of > 20% was measured in 1 patient in each group. Twelve of the 40 patients complained a headache in the first 6 days; in this respect the groups did not differ significantly. There was no difference between male and female patients with regard to side effect profile.
CONCLUSION: At concentrations of 0.5% and 0.75%, ropivacaine results in long-lasting spinal anaesthesia. (A

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8967586     DOI: 10.1007/s001010050306

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anaesthesist        ISSN: 0003-2417            Impact factor:   1.041


  10 in total

1.  Benefit of the minimal invasive ultrasound-guided single shot femoro-popliteal block for ankle surgery in comparison with spinal anesthesia.

Authors:  Alen Protić; Mladen Horvat; Helga Komen-Usljebrka; Vedran Frkovic; Marta Zuvic-Butorac; Krešimir Bukal; Alan Sustic
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2010-09-27       Impact factor: 1.704

Review 2.  Benefit-risk assessment of ropivacaine in the management of postoperative pain.

Authors:  Wolfgang Zink; Bernhard M Graf
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 5.606

3.  Comparison of two different doses of intrathecal dexmedetomidine as adjuvant with isobaric ropivacaine in lower abdominal surgery.

Authors:  Atul Kumar Singh; Yashpal Singh; Gaurav Jain; Ravi Kumar Verma
Journal:  Anesth Essays Res       Date:  2015 Sep-Dec

4.  Dose-dependent effect of intrathecal dexmedetomidine on isobaric ropivacaine in spinal anesthesia for abdominal hysterectomy: Effect on block characteristics and hemodynamics.

Authors:  Udita Naithani; Mahendra Singh Meena; Sunanda Gupta; Khemraj Meena; Lalatendu Swain; D S Pradeep
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar

5.  Comparison of clonidine and fentanyl as adjuvant to ropivacaine in spinal anesthesia in lower abdominal surgeries.

Authors:  Radhe Sharan; Rajan Verma; Akshay Dhawan; Jugal Kumar
Journal:  Anesth Essays Res       Date:  2016 Sep-Dec

6.  A Comparison of Intrathecal Dexmedetomidine and Neostigmine as Adjuvant to Ropivacaine for Lower Limb Surgeries: A Double-blind Randomized Controlled Study.

Authors:  Ashutosh Kumar Singh; Abhyuday Kumar; Ashok Kumar; Braj Kishore Prasad; Pradeep Kumar Tiwary; Ranjeet Kumar
Journal:  Anesth Essays Res       Date:  2017 Oct-Dec

7.  A Comparative Study between Intrathecal Isobaric Ropivacaine 0.75% Plus Dexmedetomidine and Isobaric Ropivacaine 0.75% Plus Fentanyl for Lower Limb Surgeries.

Authors:  Prabhavathi Ravipati; G Anand Isaac; P Narasimha Reddy; Leela Krishna; T Supritha
Journal:  Anesth Essays Res       Date:  2017 Jul-Sep

8.  Effects of isobaric ropivacaine with or without fentanyl in subarachnoid blockade: A prospective double-blind, randomized study.

Authors:  Kaushik Rao Seetharam; Gayathri Bhat
Journal:  Anesth Essays Res       Date:  2015 May-Aug

9.  A comparative evaluation of hyperbaric ropivacaine versus hyperbaric bupivacaine for elective surgery under spinal anesthesia.

Authors:  Kalpana R Kulkarni; Sunetra Deshpande; Ismail Namazi; Sunil Kumar Singh; Konark Kondilya
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-04

10.  Hyperbaric spinal ropivacaine in lower limb and hip surgery: A comparison with hyperbaric bupivacaine.

Authors:  Feroz Ahmad Dar; Mohsin Bin Mushtaq; Umar Mushtaq Khan
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015 Oct-Dec
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.