Cargando…

Comparative study of intrathecal hyperbaric versus isobaric ropivacaine: A randomized control trial

BACKGROUND: Hyperbaric ropivacaine produce more reliable sensory and motor block, with faster onset, better quality of muscles relaxation than isobaric ropivacaine. So, this study was designed to compare the efficacy of hyperbaric ropivacaine with isobaric ropivacaine in patients undergoing lower ab...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gupta, Rajni, Bogra, Jaishri, Singh, Prithvi Kumar, Saxena, Sulekha, Chandra, Girish, Kushwaha, Jitendra Kumar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757795/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24015125
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.115326
_version_ 1782282269612834816
author Gupta, Rajni
Bogra, Jaishri
Singh, Prithvi Kumar
Saxena, Sulekha
Chandra, Girish
Kushwaha, Jitendra Kumar
author_facet Gupta, Rajni
Bogra, Jaishri
Singh, Prithvi Kumar
Saxena, Sulekha
Chandra, Girish
Kushwaha, Jitendra Kumar
author_sort Gupta, Rajni
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Hyperbaric ropivacaine produce more reliable sensory and motor block, with faster onset, better quality of muscles relaxation than isobaric ropivacaine. So, this study was designed to compare the efficacy of hyperbaric ropivacaine with isobaric ropivacaine in patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery. METHODS: A randomized controlled double blind study in two groups of patients. group A (n=35) received 3 ml of isobaric ropivacaine 6 mg/ml (18 mg). Group B (n=35) received 3 ml of hyperbaric ropivacaine 6 mg/ml (18 mg). The onset and duration of sensory block at dermatome level T10, maximum upper and lower spread of sensory block, intensity, and duration of motor block were recorded. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Block characteristics were compared using the two-tailed Mann – Whitney U-test. The proportion of side effects was compared using the Chi-square test. RESULTS: The median time of onset of sensory block at the T10 dermatome was 4.4±1.3 min in group B and 6.0±1.03 min in group A. The median time to maximum block height was 16.7±3.7 min in group A and 12.03±1.96 min in group B. The median duration of complete motor recovery (B0) was significantly shorter in the heavy ropivacaine group (166.5±11.7 min) compared with the isobaric ropivacaine group (192.9±9.6 min). CONCLUSIONS: Intrathecal hyperbaric ropivacaine provides more rapid, adequate, and good quality of sensory and motor block with rapid post-operative recovery as compare to isobaric ropivacaine.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3757795
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37577952013-09-06 Comparative study of intrathecal hyperbaric versus isobaric ropivacaine: A randomized control trial Gupta, Rajni Bogra, Jaishri Singh, Prithvi Kumar Saxena, Sulekha Chandra, Girish Kushwaha, Jitendra Kumar Saudi J Anaesth Original Article BACKGROUND: Hyperbaric ropivacaine produce more reliable sensory and motor block, with faster onset, better quality of muscles relaxation than isobaric ropivacaine. So, this study was designed to compare the efficacy of hyperbaric ropivacaine with isobaric ropivacaine in patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery. METHODS: A randomized controlled double blind study in two groups of patients. group A (n=35) received 3 ml of isobaric ropivacaine 6 mg/ml (18 mg). Group B (n=35) received 3 ml of hyperbaric ropivacaine 6 mg/ml (18 mg). The onset and duration of sensory block at dermatome level T10, maximum upper and lower spread of sensory block, intensity, and duration of motor block were recorded. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Block characteristics were compared using the two-tailed Mann – Whitney U-test. The proportion of side effects was compared using the Chi-square test. RESULTS: The median time of onset of sensory block at the T10 dermatome was 4.4±1.3 min in group B and 6.0±1.03 min in group A. The median time to maximum block height was 16.7±3.7 min in group A and 12.03±1.96 min in group B. The median duration of complete motor recovery (B0) was significantly shorter in the heavy ropivacaine group (166.5±11.7 min) compared with the isobaric ropivacaine group (192.9±9.6 min). CONCLUSIONS: Intrathecal hyperbaric ropivacaine provides more rapid, adequate, and good quality of sensory and motor block with rapid post-operative recovery as compare to isobaric ropivacaine. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2013 /pmc/articles/PMC3757795/ /pubmed/24015125 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.115326 Text en Copyright: © Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Gupta, Rajni
Bogra, Jaishri
Singh, Prithvi Kumar
Saxena, Sulekha
Chandra, Girish
Kushwaha, Jitendra Kumar
Comparative study of intrathecal hyperbaric versus isobaric ropivacaine: A randomized control trial
title Comparative study of intrathecal hyperbaric versus isobaric ropivacaine: A randomized control trial
title_full Comparative study of intrathecal hyperbaric versus isobaric ropivacaine: A randomized control trial
title_fullStr Comparative study of intrathecal hyperbaric versus isobaric ropivacaine: A randomized control trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparative study of intrathecal hyperbaric versus isobaric ropivacaine: A randomized control trial
title_short Comparative study of intrathecal hyperbaric versus isobaric ropivacaine: A randomized control trial
title_sort comparative study of intrathecal hyperbaric versus isobaric ropivacaine: a randomized control trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757795/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24015125
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.115326
work_keys_str_mv AT guptarajni comparativestudyofintrathecalhyperbaricversusisobaricropivacainearandomizedcontroltrial
AT bograjaishri comparativestudyofintrathecalhyperbaricversusisobaricropivacainearandomizedcontroltrial
AT singhprithvikumar comparativestudyofintrathecalhyperbaricversusisobaricropivacainearandomizedcontroltrial
AT saxenasulekha comparativestudyofintrathecalhyperbaricversusisobaricropivacainearandomizedcontroltrial
AT chandragirish comparativestudyofintrathecalhyperbaricversusisobaricropivacainearandomizedcontroltrial
AT kushwahajitendrakumar comparativestudyofintrathecalhyperbaricversusisobaricropivacainearandomizedcontroltrial