Advertisement!
Author Information Pack
Editorial Board
Submit article
Special Issue
Editor's selection process
Join as Reviewer/Editor
List of Reviewer
Indexing Information
Most popular articles
Purchase Single Articles
Archive
Free Online Access
Current Issue
Recommend this journal to your library
Advertiser
Accepted Articles
Search Articles
Email Alerts
FAQ
Contact Us
Indian Journal of Anesthesia and Analgesia

Volume  6, Issue 2, March - April 2019, Pages 555-562
 

Original Article

Intrathecal Hyperbaric Bupivacaine and Isobaric Levobupivacaine for Spinal Anaesthesia: Block Characteristics and Clinical Effects

Chandana MH1, Gajendra Singh2

1Senior Resident, Dept of Anaesthesiology, Vijayanagara Institute of Medical Sciences, Ballari, Karnataka 583104, India, 2Associate Professor, Dept of Anaesthesiology, Mahadevappa Rampure Medical College, Kalaburagi, Karnataka 585105, India.

Choose an option to locate / access this Article:
90 days Access
Check if you have access through your login credentials.        PDF      |
|

Open Access: View PDF

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21088/ijaa.2349.8471.6219.29

Abstract

Introduction: Bupivacaine (0.5% heavy) is used to administer subarachnoid block but carries an increased risk of cardiac and central nervous system toxicity if inadvertently injected intravascularly. Levobupivacaine is S-enantiomer of racemic bupivacaine with lesser systemic toxicity. A study was done to compare isobaric levobupivacaine and hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia in patients undergoing elective lower abdominal surgeries to study hemodynamic variations, sensory and motor blocking properties of these. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled double blind study was conducted in 100 patients of ASA I and II physical status posted for elective lower abdominal surgeries under subarachnoid block, randomized into 2 groups with 50 patients each, received either 3 ml of 0.5% isobaric levobupivacaine (group L) or 3 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine (group B). Hemodynamic parameters, time for onset of sensory and motor blockade, maximum height of sensory block and total duration of sensory and motor blockade were recorded. Intraoperative or postoperative side effects were noted. Results: The incidence of hypotension and bradycardia were comparable between the two groups. Onset of sensory and motor block (L-2.88 ± 1.81, B-2.12 ± 0.47, p value 0.005, L-3.12 ± 1.62, B-2.28 ± 0.81, p value 0.001, respectively) were significantly delayed in levobupivacaine group. The total duration of sensory block (L- 190.04 ± 35.19, B- 204.02 ± 30.06, p value 0.035) and motor block (L-176.65 ± 40.64, B 204.46 ± 29.8, p value<0.001) were higher in bupivacaine group. Conclusion: 0.5% isobaric levobupivacaine could be an alternative to 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia with similar hemodynamic changes, side effects and shorter durations of sensory and motor blockade.


Keywords : spinal; anaesthesia; isobaric; levobupivacaine; hyperbaric; bupivacaine.
Corresponding Author : Gajendra Singh