Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[Hyperbaric subarachnoid ropivacaine in ambulatory surgery: comparative study with hyperbaric bupivacaine].

Authors: F, López-Soriano; B, Lajarín; F, Rivas; J M, Verdú; J, López-Robles;

[Hyperbaric subarachnoid ropivacaine in ambulatory surgery: comparative study with hyperbaric bupivacaine].

Abstract

To compare the clinical efficacy of hyperbaric 0.5% ropivacaine and 0.5% bupivacaine in subarachnoid blockade for ambulatory surgery.Randomized double-blind study of 90 patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery. Subarachnoid blockade was achieved with 0.5% ropivacaine (12.5 mg) or 0.5% bupivacaine (12.5 mg) in 10% glucose. We recorded age, sex, weight, latency, extension of motor and sensory blocks, duration of surgery, side effects and quality as perceived by the surgeon and the patient.The two groups were similar with respect to latency time and extension of sensory block. Durations of motor (68.9 +/- 22.9 min) and sensory (127.0 +/- 24.3 min) blocks were significantly shorter with ropivacaine than with bupivacaine (133.3 +/- 29.4 and 174.9 +/- 25.5 min, respectively). Patients in the ropivacaine group also experienced a less intense motor block (Bromage 1, 11.1% vs. 93.3%) and fewer episodes of hypotension 0% vs. 17.7%) or bradycardia (4.4% vs. 8.8%) than those in the bupivacaine group. No neurotoxic effects or instances of postdural puncture headache were recorded.Hyperbaric 0.5% ropivacaine offers certain advantages over hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine for subarachnoid block in outpatient surgery. Duration and intensity of the sensory-motor blockade is less with ropivacaine and fewer cardiovascular side effects develop.

Keywords

Adult, Aged, 80 and over, Male, Adolescent, Hemodynamics, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Amides, Anesthesia, Spinal, Bupivacaine, Ambulatory Surgical Procedures, Double-Blind Method, Anesthesia Recovery Period, Bradycardia, Neuromuscular Blockade, Humans, Female, Anesthetics, Local, Hypotension, Aged

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!