A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF EFFECT OF 0.5% AND 0.75% ISOBARIC ROPIVACAINE IN SPINAL ANAESTHESIA IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING ELECTIVE LOWER LIMB SURGERIES

Journal Title: Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences - Year 2016, Vol 5, Issue 30

Abstract

 OBJECTIVES The study was conducted to compare the differences in the onset, duration of action and complications of intrathecal isobaric ropivacaine 0.5% (Group I) and intrathecal isobaric ropivacaine 0.75% (Group II) in elective lower limb surgeries. METHODS We enrolled 60 patients of ASA (American Society of Anaesthesiologists) Grade I-II scheduled for lower limb surgeries under spinal anaesthesia for this prospective randomized control trial. The patients were randomized to receive either 15 mg of 0.5% isobaric ropivacaine or 22.5 mg of 0.75% isobaric ropivacaine intrathecally. The time of onset of sensory and motor block, haemodynamic status, time for regression of sensory level to T10 dermatome, time of first request of analgesics and adverse effects were compared in both the groups. RESULTS The time of onset of sensory and motor block was significantly longer in Group-I than Group-II (P<0.001). Haemodynamic changes did not differ in patients of either group (P>0.05). The onset of analgesia was faster in Group II (2.13±0.50 mins.) than Group I (2.6±0.93 mins.). The time for regression of sensory level to T10 dermatome (Group-I 150±28.9 minutes and Group-II 180±32.07) were statistically longer in Group II (P<0.001). The time of first request of analgesics by the patient in Group-I was 197±31.20 minutes and in Group II was 219±31.66 minutes, which was statistically significant (P<0.001). The onset of motor block was quicker (P˂0.05) and the total duration of motor block was longer (P˂0.05) in Group II. No unexpected adverse events were registered. CONCLUSION The subarachnoid injection of glucose-free isobaric ropivacaine 0.5% and 0.75% solutions results in a variable spread of analgesia, accompanied by a good quality of motor block. Ropivacaine 0.75% produces a better quality of analgesia and longer duration of analgesia than the 0.5% solution.

Authors and Affiliations

Tridip Borah, Anulekha , Dipika

Keywords

Related Articles

 INTRAVENOUS MIDAZOLAM - ROLE IN THE TREATMENT OF HYPERVENTILATION SYNDROME

 [b]BACKGROUND[/b]: Hyperventilation syndrome (HVS) also known as irritable Heart, Da Costas syndrome or soldier’s heart is induced by stress. It comprises various symptoms like hyperventilation, breathlessness,...

EFFECT OF BODY MASS INDEX ON BLOOD PRESSURE AND LIPID PROFILE

BACKGROUND The importance of maintaining a healthy BMI is known all over the globe. Obesity causes Heart diseases, increase the potential for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, increased risk of Stroke, Carcinomas, Hypertension a...

 A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DCR VERSUS TOTI'S PROCEDURE

Dacryocystitis is a constant menace to the eye because the dacryocystitic fluid contains various pathogenic bacteria such as pneumococci, staphylococci, streptococci etc. Therefore, hypopyon corneal ulcer can be easi...

ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION IN HAEMODIALYSIS PATIENTS- A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY AT VAATSALYA HOSPITAL, SHIMOGA, INDIA

BACKGROUND With the advancement in the medical treatment and haemodialysis techniques, life expectancy of ESRD patients has increased significantly, and this fact has highlighted the importance of quality of life of HD p...

THE ROLE OF PROPHYLACTIC ANTIBIOTICS IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING ELECTIVE CHOLECYSTECTOMY- A RANDOMISED PLACEBO CONTROLLED RECIPIENT BLIND TRIAL

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard treatment for symptomatic cholelithiasis. The incidence of infectious complications after LC is significantly lower compared with infections with open cho...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP133669
  • DOI 10.14260/jemds/2016/363
  • Views 72
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Tridip Borah, Anulekha, Dipika (2016).  A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF EFFECT OF 0.5% AND 0.75% ISOBARIC ROPIVACAINE IN SPINAL ANAESTHESIA IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING ELECTIVE LOWER LIMB SURGERIES. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences, 5(30), 1542-1547. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-133669