Comparative study of (0.5%) levobupivacaine and (0.75%) ropivacaine in supraclavicular brachial plexus block by lateral approach

Authors

  • Jitesh Kumar Department of Anaesthesia, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna - 800004, Bihar, India
  • . Sweta Department of, Paediatrics Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
  • Kumari Kanak Lata DNB 2nd Year, Shambhunath Pandit Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
  • B. K. Prasad Department of Anaesthesia, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna - 800004, Bihar, India
  • V. K. Gupta Department of Anaesthesia, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna - 800004, Bihar, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20172127

Keywords:

Brachial plexus, Levobupivacaine, Ropivacaine

Abstract

Background: As compared to general anaesthesia, brachial plexus block for upper limb surgery gives fewer side effects and better postoperative analgesia. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of 0.5% levobupivacaine and compare it with 0.75% ropivacaine.

Methods: For this prospective randomized, controlled study, 60 patients of both sexes of ASA grade 1 and 2 were enrolled and divided into two groups and supraclavicular brachial plexus block was performed by lateral approach using 30 ml of 0.5% levobupivacaine and 0.75% ropivacaine. The onset of sensory and motor block, duration of sensory and motor block and analgesia and possible adverse events were recorded.

Results: No statistically significant difference was observed in the onset of sensory block in both groups. Onset of motor block was significantly faster in levobupivacaine group (P<0.05). Duration of sensory block, motor block and analgesia was significantly longer in levobupivacaine group (P<0.05).

Conclusions: 0.5% levobupivacaine is better alternative to 0.75% ropivacaine in brachial plexus block in term of early onset of sensory block and long duration of analgesia.

References

Lee JA, Atkinson RS, Rushman GB. A synopsis of anaesthesia, Butterworth-Heinemann, 10th edition; 1987:618

Korbon GA, Carron H, Lander CJ. First rib palpation: a safer, easier technique for supraclavicular brachial plexus block. Anesth Analg. 1989;68(5):682-5.

Kulenkampff D, Persky MA. Brachial plexus anaesthesia: its indications, techniques and dangers. Ann Surg. 1928;37:883-91.

Hempel V, van Finck M, Baumgartner E. A longitudinal supraclavicular approach to the brachial plexus for the insertion of plastic cannulas. Anesth Analg. 1981;60:352-5.

Burlacu CL, Buggy DJ. Update on local anesthetics: focus on levobupivacaine. Therap Clin Risk Manag. 2008;4:381-92.

Bhatt SH. Levobupivacaine. J Pharma Soci Winco. 2001;28-34.

Piangatelli C, De Angelis C, Pecora L, Recanatini F, Cerchiara P, Testasecca D. Levobupivacaine and ropivacaine in the infraclavicular brachial plexus block. Minerva Anestesiol. 2006;72(4):217-21.

Cacciapuoti A, Castello G, Francesco A. Levobupivacaine, racemicbupivacaine and racemicropivacaine in brachial plexus block. Minerva Anestesiol. 2002;68(7-8):599-605.

Liisanantti O, Luukkonen J, Rosenberg PH. High-dose bupivacaine, levobupivacaine and ropivacaine in axillary brachial plexus block. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2004;48:601-6.

Di Dona A, Fontana C, Lancia F, Celleno D. Efficacy and comparison of 0.5% levobupivacaine with 0.75% ropivacaine for peribulbar anaesthesia in cataract surgery. Euro J Anaesthesiol. 2006;23(6):487-90.

Foster RH, Markham AL. Evobupivacaie: are view of as pharmacology and use as a localanaesthetic. Drugs. 2000;59:551-79.

Mc Leod GA, Burke D. Levobupivacaine. Anesth. 2001;56:331-11.

Casati A, Vinciguerra F, Santorsola R, Aldegheri G, Putzu M. Sciaticnerve block with 0.5% levobupivacaine, 0.75% levobupivacaine or 0.75%ropivacaine: a double-blind, randomized comparison. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005;22:452-6.

Downloads

Published

2017-05-27

How to Cite

Kumar, J., Sweta, ., Lata, K. K., Prasad, B. K., & Gupta, V. K. (2017). Comparative study of (0.5%) levobupivacaine and (0.75%) ropivacaine in supraclavicular brachial plexus block by lateral approach. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 5(6), 2426–2429. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20172127

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles