A prospective randomized double blind comparative study of 0.5% ropivacaine and 0.5% bupivacaine in brachial plexus block with supraclavicular approach in upper limb surgeries using peripheral nerve locator

Journal Title: Indian Journal of Clinical Anaesthesia - Year 2017, Vol 4, Issue 4

Abstract

Introduction: Racemic Bupivacaine is a commonly used local anesthetic. Ropivacaine, an enantiomerically pure stereo-isomer of Bupivacaine is now available in India. Previous studies have proved the suitability of Ropivacaine for neural blockade by different routes. Aims: Our prospective, randomized, double blind study aimed to compare 0.5% Ropivacaine with 0.5% Bupivacaine for nerve-locator aided Supraclavicular Brachial Plexus Anesthesia in terms of onset, duration and quality of anesthesia. Materials and Method: 62 ASA I &II patients undergoing upper limb surgeries received 3mg/kg of 0.5% Ropivacaine or 0.5% Bupivacaine by Nerve locator aided Supraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block. Results: Group Ropivacaine had an earlier onset of analgesia, sensory and motor blockade (4.61±2.19, 7.03±3.37, 11.00±5.85minutes) as compared to Group Bupivacaine (7.58±3.47, 12.35±8.20 & 18.87±9.26 minutes) with p values of < 0.001, =0.001 and 0.001 respectively. Duration of analgesia, sensory and motor blockade was shorter in Group Ropivacaine (444.2±190.3minutes, 457.0±174.3, 404.4±137.6 minutes) than Group Bupivacaine (662.9±262.6, 650.7±273.8, 640.8±218.1minutes) with p values of <0.001, 0.002 and < 0.001 respectively. Conclusion: We found that Ropivacaine in Supraclavicular Brachial Plexus Anesthesia had a faster onset, equivalent degree of sensory-motor blockade and faster recovery than Bupivacaine. 3mg/kg of both drugs showed no adverse effects. Thus 0.5 % Ropivacaine is a safe substitute for 0.5 % Bupivacaine in brachial plexus blocks with special use in ambulatory surgeries.

Authors and Affiliations

Shalaka S. Nellore, Devangi A. Parikh

Keywords

Related Articles

Comparative study between oral midazolam and oral ketamine as preanaesthetic medication in paediatric patients undergoing elective surgery: a randomized double blind study

Introduction Prime objective of anaesthesiologist is to minimize adverse psychological and physiological effects of anaesthetic technique Premedication causes sedation and reduction of anxiety during separation from pare...

Comparing the ease of identifying the subarachnoid space at midline of L3 -L4 interspace by preprocedural ultrasound versus landmark technique - A randomized control study

Introduction The role of ultrasound in central neuraxial blockade has been underappreciated partly because of the relative ease of the landmarkguided technique and falsely perceived difficulty in imaging through the narr...

Prader willi syndrome- A case report

Prader willi syndrome PWS is a complex multisystem disorder PWS mainly affects central nervous system and often involves the hypothalamus Its major clinical features include neonatal hypotonia developmental delay short s...

Comparison between dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during mechanically ventilated patients after major intraabdominal surgeries: An observational study

Introduction Major complex intraabdominal surgeries which have prolonged intraoperative surgical duration and wide hemodynamic fluctuations so they required an elective mechanical ventilation in view of large fluid shift...

2014 ACC/AHA guidelines for cardiac patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery – omitted zones

With increase in life-expectance and also increase in life-style induced diseases, more and more patients suffering from cardiovascular disease are coming for non-cardiac surgery.

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP315132
  • DOI 10.18231/2394-4994.2017.0100
  • Views 66
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Shalaka S. Nellore, Devangi A. Parikh (2017). A prospective randomized double blind comparative study of 0.5% ropivacaine and 0.5% bupivacaine in brachial plexus block with supraclavicular approach in upper limb surgeries using peripheral nerve locator. Indian Journal of Clinical Anaesthesia, 4(4), 498-502. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-315132