Comparison of isobaric levobupivacaine versus hyperbaric bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for cesarean section: A prospective randomized case control study

Journal Title: Indian Journal of Clinical Anaesthesia - Year 2018, Vol 5, Issue 4

Abstract

Introduction Isobaric levobupivacaine is now being investigated in spinal anesthesia owing to its better safety profile however the studies are sparse which show clinical efficacy of intrathecal isobaric levobupivacaine alone in its ED95 dose 125135mg for cesarean sections CS and its comparison with most commonly used regime of hyperbaric bupivacaine 10mgObjective and Methods 100 parturients undergoing CS in spinal anesthesia were randomized in two equal groups to receive either 125mg isobaric levobupivacaine group L or 10mg hyperbaric bupivacaine group B Sensory motor block characteristics onset extent and duration hemodynamic profile adverse effects and success rate of the two drugs were comparedResults All patients in both groups achieved target sensory level of T6 and Bromage score of 3 complete motor block hence no patient required anesthetic supplementation resulting in 100 success rate in both groups Sensory onset Time to T6 was significantly faster in group B 38081 min than in Group L 428104 min p 0011 Motor onset Time to B3 was also significantly faster in Group B 304069 than in group L 356063 p 00002 However this difference of 1 xssremovedConclusion Isobaric levobupivacaine 125mg can be used as an alternative to hyperbaric bupivacaine 10mg in spinal anesthesia for cesarean section as it offers effective sensory motor blockade with clinically comparable onset timeKeywords Isobaric levobupivacaine Hyperbaric bupivacaine Spinal anesthesia Caesarean section

Authors and Affiliations

Udita Naithani, Madhanmohan C, Megha Gupta, Virendra Verma, Pankaj Damor

Keywords

Related Articles

A prospective study of associated surgical hazards in trans-urethral resection of bladder tumor (turbt) comparing blind versus nerve stimulator guided obturator nerve block with spinal block

Introduction: Bladder cancer is the ninth most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide. The overall incidence has increased by 10% since last 30 years and 5 years survival rate by 50% in European countries.1 Transurethral re...

A comparative study of palonosetron and ondansetron in prevention of post operative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery

Introduction: In this randomized, double-blind study we evaluated the relative efficacy of palonosetron (a new, selective 5hydroxytryptamine [5-HT3] receptor antagonist) and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea...

Comparison of the effects of lateral and sitting position during induction of spinal anaesthesia with plain levobupivacaine in caesarean section

Introduction: Spinal anaesthesia is a commonly employed anaesthetic technique for caesarean section. Levobupivacaineis a new long acting amide, local anaesthetic. Only few studies have investigated spinal anaesthesia usi...

Effect of dexmedetomidine infusion on stress induced blood glucose levels and intraoperative sevoflurane requirement

Introduction Dexmedetomidine has been shown to blunt the stress response to surgery and reduce the consumption of inhalational anaesthetic agents Hence we designed this study to observe the effects of IV Dexmedetomidine...

A comparison of two different doses of sildenafil in pulmonary arterial hypertension – a prospective randomised controlled study

Introduction: Sildenafil is an inhibitor of phosphodiesterase 5. Pulmonary vascular resistance caused by pulmonary artery hypertension can be relieved by sildenafil which causes rapid and potent vasodilatation. Materials...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP476510
  • DOI 10.18231/2394-4994.2018.0104
  • Views 112
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Udita Naithani, Madhanmohan C, Megha Gupta, Virendra Verma, Pankaj Damor (2018). Comparison of isobaric levobupivacaine versus hyperbaric bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for cesarean section: A prospective randomized case control study. Indian Journal of Clinical Anaesthesia, 5(4), 549-555. https://europub.co.uk./articles/-A-476510