ABSTRACT
Ropivacaine, a long acting amide local anaesthetic, has reduced potential for neurotoxicity and cardiotoxicity and is considered to block sensory nerves to a greater degree than motor nerves. In today’s world, faster recovery along with minimal side effects and early ambulation after surgeries under spinal anaesthesia are very important. So, this prospective randomized study was aimed at evaluating and comparing the efficacy and safety of intrathecally injected isobaric ropivacaine and intrathecally injected hyperbaric bupivacaine in patients posted for lower abdominal surgeries under spinal anaesthesia.METHODS90 patients belonging to ASA physical status I & II scheduled for lower abdomen surgeries were randomly selected for the study and were divided into two groups of 45 each. Group B received 3 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric (15 mg) bupivacaine intrathecally. Group R received 3 ml of 0.75% isobaric (22.5 mg) ropivacaine intrathecally. Onset and extent of sensory block, onset and duration of motor block, maximum height of sensory block, duration of analgesia, hemodynamic parameters and adverse effects if any were studied. SPSS 20.0 and GraphPad Prism 6.0 were used for the analysis of the data.RESULTSThe mean time for onset of sensory block was significantly faster in group B as compared to group R (8.28±2.2 min v/s 7.98±2.2 min). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the time for two segment regression. Mean time of onset of motor block was significantly faster in group B. The mean duration of motor blockade was 146.89±14.11 min in group R and 208.91±14.62 min in group B. The mean duration of analgesia was comparable in both the groups. Hemodynamic parameters and side effects were comparable in both the groups.CONCLUSIONS0.75% isobaric ropivacaine provided similar duration of analgesia with a shorter duration of motor block as compared to hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine and it also provided adequate level of sensory block for the surgery with minimal intraoperative and postoperative side effects and stable haemodynamics throughout the surgery.
ABSTRACT
Every surgical procedure inflicts pain during the procedure which also continues in the post-operative period as post-operative pain. Intraperitoneal instillation of local anaesthetics in laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been used to reduce postoperative pain and to decrease the need for postoperative analgesics. We wanted to compare intraperitoneal instillation of bupivacaine and ropivacaine for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.METHODSAfter obtaining ethical committee’s clearance and informed consent, sixty patients, aged 20–60 years, of either gender, and American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status I to II scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included and categorized into two groups (n=30). Group B patients received 20 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine intraperitoneally after cholecystectomy and Group R patients received 20 mL of 0.75% ropivacaine intraperitoneally after cholecystectomy. Mean duration of postoperative analgesia and number of doses of rescue analgesic required were observed. Patients were assessed at 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, 18 and 24 hours postoperatively with respect to quality of analgesia (VAS), hemodynamic parameters and side effects.RESULTSMean Time for first rescue analgesic requirement was 148.04 ± 53.47 min in group B and 295.38 ± 74.15 in group R and the difference was statistically significant (p=0.0001). In group R 17 (56.6%) patients did not require any rescue analgesic throughout the study period as compared to 8 (26.6%) patients in group B. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant. (p=0.019). A lower VAS score was observed in group R as compared to group B, with statistically significant difference at 2, 4 and 8 hours respectively. (p= 0.001, 0.003 and 0.032).CONCLUSIONS0.75% ropivacaine is a better alternative to 0.5% bupivacaine when given intraperitoneally for management of postoperative pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anaesthesia as it prolongs the duration of analgesia, provides a better quality of analgesia till 8 hours postoperatively, with lesser demand and requirement of rescue analgesic in the postoperative period, and has lesser side effects.