Comparative study on efficacy of caudal bupivacaine and ropivacaine in providing postoperative pain relief in children

Journal Title: Medpulse International Journal of Anesthesiology - Year 2019, Vol 10, Issue 2

Abstract

Background: Pain is an unpleasant subjective sensation which can only be experienced and not expressed, especially in children. Pain relief is even more important in children who rely on their parents or caregivers for their well-being. The concept of postoperative pain relief and its use in the pediatric age group has improved dramatically over recent years. Aim of the study: The objectives of the study were to compare the efficacy of caudal Bupivacaine and Ropivacaine to provide post-operative pain relief in children and also to compare the motor block and hemodynamic effects caused by them in the pediatric population. Methods: In a randomized, prospective, parallel group, double-blinded study, 50 children were recruited and allocated into two groups: Group B (n=25) received 0.25% Bupivacaine 1ml/kg and Group R (n=25) received 0.2% Ropivacaine 1ml/kg. Induction of anesthesia was achieved with 50% N20 and 8% Sevoflurane in oxygen in spontaneous ventilation. An appropriate sized LMA was then inserted and a caudal block performed in all patients. Peri-operative hemodynamic parameters were monitored. The pain was assessed with Face, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC) pain score and degree of motor blockade was assessed with Bromage scale. Results: Group B patients achieved a statistically significant higher Bromage score compared with Group R patients (p<0.001). The quality and duration of analgesia were comparable between both the groups. The peri-operative hemodynamics were stable and comparable between both the groups. Conclusion: Caudal Ropivacaine 0.2% (1ml/kg) provides effective postoperative analgesia similar to caudal Bupivacaine 0.25%(1ml/kg) and less motor blockade as compared to Bupivacaine, making it a suitable agent for day care surgery with an increased safety margin in younger children.

Authors and Affiliations

C Sankaran, Aldona Shaji

Keywords

Related Articles

A clinical comparative study between Rocuronium and Suxamethonium for endotracheal intubation

Background: This is a prospective randomized study done to compare the two drugs namely Rocuronium bromide and suxamethonium for tracheal intubation and further to evaluate whether Rocuronium bromide can be an acceptable...

A comparative study of Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam with fentanyl for monitored anaesthesia care in tympanoplastyunder local anaesthesia

Background and Aims: Monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) is a procedure in which the local anaesthesia(LA) and sedation provided using different drugs. We conducted this comparative study to see the safety and efficacy of D...

Efficacy of I-gel laryngeal mask airways in mechanically ventilated patients

Background: I-gel is a new single use, non-inflatable supraglottic device for both spontaneous and controlled ventilation. It mirrors the laryngeal anatomy design. A supraglottic airway without an inflatable cuff has pot...

Clinical audit to evaluate the palliative care and pain relief practices in a tertiary care hospital

Background: Malignancy is one of the life limiting illnesses. Palliative care includes relief of physical as well as emotional, spiritual and social pain. Assessment and management of symptoms is likely to ensure follow...

Comparative study of intrathecal isobaric levobupivacaine 0.5% with isobaric ropivacaine 0.5% for infra umbilical surgeries

Objective: To compare the block characteristics and haemodynamic stability of intrathecal isobaric levobupivacaine 0.5% with isobaric ropivacaine 0.5% for infra umbilical surgeries under spinal anaesthesia. Method: 100 p...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP616665
  • DOI 10.26611/101510214
  • Views 187
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

C Sankaran, Aldona Shaji (2019). Comparative study on efficacy of caudal bupivacaine and ropivacaine in providing postoperative pain relief in children. Medpulse International Journal of Anesthesiology, 10(2), 136-140. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-616665