Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online:82
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 34  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 43-46

Comparative efficacy and safety of intrathecal ropivacaine versus intrathecal bupivacaine in patients undergoing lower abdominal surgical procedures

1 Department of Anaesthesia, Medicare General Hospital, Kotulpur, Bankura, West Bengal, India
2 Department of Anaesthesia, D. Y. Patil School of Medicine and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Varsha Vyas
Department of Anaesthesia, D. Y. Patil School of Medicine and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ijpn.ijpn_54_18

Rights and Permissions

Objective: The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of intrathecal ropivacaine versus intrathecal bupivacaine as anesthetic agents in patients undergoing lower abdominal surgeries. Materials and Methods: In this prospective, randomized trial, patients (n = 60) were divided into two groups of 30 each. Group R (n = 30) received intrathecal ropivacaine 0.75%, 3 ml (isobaric), whereas Group B (n = 30) received intrathecal bupivacaine 0.5%, 3 ml (isobaric). The two study groups were compared with respect to onset, duration, and level of sensory block. The time for the onset of motor block, total duration of motor block, and postoperative side effects were also recorded. Statistical Analysis: Quantitative data and categorical data were analyzed using t-test and Chi-square test, respectively. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The maximum sensory level of T4 was reached in 6.7% and 13.3% of the cases of ropivacaine and bupivacaine (P = 0.68), respectively. The onset time (2.54 vs. 2.91 min; P > 0.05) and level (7.38 vs. 8.14 min; P > 0.05) of sensory block achieved were found to be similar to both the drugs. The duration of sensory block was comparable in both the study groups (321.72 vs. 301.45 min; P > 0.05), whereas the duration of motor block was significantly shorter with ropivacaine than bupivacaine (214.5 vs. 283.36 min; P < 0.05). Nonsignificant higher incidence of bradycardia (10% vs. 3.3%) and hypotension (13.3% vs. 3.3%) was observed with bupivacaine than ropivacaine. Conclusion: Intrathecal ropivacaine may be considered superior to intrathecal bupivacaine in terms of early motor recovery and similar duration of sensory block. Lower incidence of hypotension and bradycardia with ropivacaine, though apparently insignificant in this study, may indicate its better safety profile as compared to bupivacaine.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded57    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal