Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-8bbf57454-hr8xl Total loading time: 0.176 Render date: 2022-01-23T00:24:14.210Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of epidural levobupivacaine 0.5% with epidural ropivacaine 0.75% for lower limb procedures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2005

V. A. Peduto
Affiliation:
University of Perugia, Department of Medicina Clinica e Sperimentale, Policlinico Monteluce, Perugia, Italy
S. Baroncini
Affiliation:
Policlinico S. Orsola Malpighi, Department of Anaesthesiology, Bologna, Italy
S. Montanini
Affiliation:
Policlinico Universitario, Department of Anaesthesiology, Messina, Italy
R. Proietti
Affiliation:
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Department of Anaesthesiology, Rome, Italy
L. Rosignoli
Affiliation:
CTO, Department of Anaesthesiology, Rome, Italy
R. Tufano
Affiliation:
Ospedale Policlinico II, Department of Anaesthesiology, Università di Napoli, Naples, Italy
A. Casati
Affiliation:
Vita-Salute University of Milano, Department of Anaesthesiology, IRCCS H San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
Get access

Extract

Summary

Background and objective: This prospective, randomized, observer-blinded study compared onset time and duration of epidural anaesthesia produced by with levobupivacaine and ropivacaine for lower limb surgery.

Methods: ASA I–III adult patients undergoing elective lower limb procedures were randomized to receive epidural levobupivacaine 0.5% 15 mL (n = 30) or epidural ropivacaine 0.75% 15 mL (n = 35). A blinded observer evaluated onset time and regression of motor and sensory block, and intraoperative needs for fentanyl supplementation (0.1 mg intravenously).

Results: With levobupivacaine, onset time was 29 ± 24 min, with ropivacaine it was 25 ± 22 min (P = 0.41). Complete resolution of motor block required 105 ± 63 min with levobupivacaine and 95 ± 48 min with ropivacaine (P = 0.86). The time for regression of sensory block to T12 was 185 ± 77 min with levobupivacaine and 201 ± 75 min with ropivacaine (P = 0.46). Analgesic supplementation was required in one patient receiving levobupivacaine (3.5%) and in two patients receiving ropivacaine (5.7%) (P = 0.99).

Conclusions: In adults undergoing lower limb surgery, levobupivacaine 0.5% 15 mL produces an epidural block with the same clinical profile as ropivacaine 0.75% 15 mL.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© 2003 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Forster RH, Markham A. Levobupivacaine. A review of its pharmacology and use as a local anaesthetic. Drugs 2000; 59: 551579.Google Scholar
Mazoit J, Boico O, Samii K. Myocardial uptake of bupivacaine: II. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of bupivacaine enantiomers in the isolated perfused rabbit heart. Anesth Analg 1993; 77: 469476.Google Scholar
Glaser C, Marhofer P, Zimpfer G, et al. Levobupivacaine versus racemic bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia. Anesth Analg 2002; 94: 194198.Google Scholar
Cox CR, Faccenda KA, Gilhooly C, Bannister J, Scott NB, Morrison LM. Extradural S(−)-bupivacaine: comparison with racemic R–S bupivacaine. Br J Anaesth 1998; 80: 289293.Google Scholar
Cox CR, Checketts MR, Mackenzie N, Scott NB, Bannister J. Comparison of S(−)-bupivacaine with racemic (RS)-bupivacaine in supraclavicular brachial plexus block. Br J Anaesth 1998; 80: 594598.Google Scholar
Casati A, Chelly JE, Cerchierini E, et al. Clinical properties of levobupivacaine or racemic bupivacaine for sciatic nerve block. J Clin Anesth 2002; 14: 111114.Google Scholar
Santorsola R, Casati A, Cerchierini E, Moizo E, Fanelli G. Levobupivacaine for peripheral blocks of the lower limb: a clinical comparison with bupivacaine and ropivacaine. Minerva Anestesiol 2001; 67 (Suppl 1): 3336.Google Scholar
Lyons G, Columb M, Wilson RC, Johnson RV. Epidural pain relief in labour: potencies of levobupivacaine and racemic bupivacaine. Br J Anaesth 1998; 81: 899901.Google Scholar
Polley LS, Columb MO, Naughton NN, Wagner DS, van de Ven CJ. Relative analgesic potencies of ropivacaine and bupivacaine for epidural analgesia in labor: implications for therapeutic indexes. Anesthesiology 1999; 90: 944950.Google Scholar
Casati A, Santorsola R, Aldegheri G, et al. Intraoperative epidural anesthesia and postoperative analgesia with levobupivacaine for major orthopedic surgery: a double blind, randomized comparison of racemic bupivacaine and ropivacaine. J Clin Anesth 2003; 15: 126131.Google Scholar
Kopacz DJ, Helman JD, Nussbaum CE, Hsiang JN, Nora PC, Allen HW. A comparison of epidural levobupivacaine 0.5% with or without epinephrine for lumbar spine surgery. Anesth Analg 2001; 93: 755760.Google Scholar
McClellan KJ, Faulds D. Ropivacaine: an update of its use in regional anaesthesia. Drugs 2000; 60: 10651093.Google Scholar
Browner WS, Black D, Newman B, Hulley SB. Estimating sample size and power. In: Hulley SB, Cummings SR, eds. Designing Clinical Research – An Epidemiologic Approach. Baltimore, USA: Williams & Wilkins, 1988; 139150.
Alley EA, Kopacz DJ, McDonald SB, Liu SS. Hyperbaric spinal levobupivacaine: a comparison to racemic bupivacaine in volunteers. Anesth Analg 2002; 94: 188193.Google Scholar
McDonald SB, Liu SS, Kopacz DJ, Stephenson CA. Hyperbaric spinal ropivacaine: a comparison to bupivacaine in volunteers. Anesthesiology 1999; 90: 971977.Google Scholar
Gautier PE, De Kock M, Van Steenberge A, et al. Intrathecal ropivacaine for ambulatory surgery. Anesthesiology 1999; 91: 12391245.Google Scholar
Kopacz DJ, Allen HW, Thompson GE. A comparison of levobupivacaine 0.75% with racemic bupivacaine for lower abdominal surgery. Anesth Analg 2000; 90: 642648.Google Scholar
McGlade DP, Kalpokas MV, Mooney PH, et al. Comparison of 0.5% ropivacaine and 0.5% bupivacaine in lumbar epidural anaesthesia for lower limb orthopaedic surgery. Anaesth Intens Care 1997; 25: 262266.Google Scholar
Crosby E, Sandler A, Finucane B, et al. Comparison of epidural anaesthesia with ropivacaine 0.5% and bupivacaine 0.5% for caesarean section. Can J Anesth 1998; 45: 10661071.Google Scholar
Dony P, Dewinde V, Vanderick B, et al. The comparative toxicity of ropivacaine and bupivacaine at equipotent doses in rats. Anesth Analg 2000; 91: 14891492.Google Scholar
Huang YF, Pryor ME, Mather LE, Veering BT. Cardiovascular and central nervous system effects of intravenous levobupivacaine and bupivacaine in sheep. Anesth Analg 1998; 86: 797804.Google Scholar
Denson DD, Behbehani MM, Gregg RV. Enantiomer-specific effects of an intravenously administered arrhythmogenic dose of bupivacaine on neurons of the nucleus tractus solitarius and the cardiovascular system in the anesthetized rat. Reg Anesth 1992; 17: 311316.Google Scholar
Bardsley H, Gristwood R, Baker H, Watson N, Nimmo W. A comparison of the cardiovascular effects of levobupivacaine and rac-bupivacaine following intravenous administration to healthy volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 46: 245249.Google Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of epidural levobupivacaine 0.5% with epidural ropivacaine 0.75% for lower limb procedures
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of epidural levobupivacaine 0.5% with epidural ropivacaine 0.75% for lower limb procedures
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of epidural levobupivacaine 0.5% with epidural ropivacaine 0.75% for lower limb procedures
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *