A CLINICAL COMPARISON OF 0.75% ISOBARIC ROPIVACAINE WITH 0.5% ISOBARIC BUPIVACAINE IN SUPRACLAVICULAR BRACHIAL PLEXUS BLOCK FOR UPPER LIMB SURGERIES

Abstract

Background: Regional anaesthesia and analgesia, has the potential to provide excellent operating conditions along with better and prolonged post-operative with pain relief with fewer side effects. As a result, it is becoming increasingly popular for ambulatory anaesthesia and for day care patients.. Among the commonly used local anaesthetics, lignocaine and bupivacaine, bupivacaine has significant cardiovascular and central nervous system toxicity. In addition, bupivacaine also has lesser differentiation between sensory and motor blockade post-operatively. Ropivacaine and levobupivacaine were developed to avoid the bupivacaine related toxicities. The clinical safety profile of ropivacaine seems to be more favourable than that of levobupivacaine. With this background the following study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of ropivacaine 0.75% for brachial plexus block in upper limb surgeries and its clinical comparison with bupivacaine 0.5%. Aims and Objectives: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of ropivacaine 0.75% and bupivacaine 0.5% as potential agents for brachial plexus block for surgeries of the upper limb around and below the elbow. Settings and Design: prospective, comparative, randomized, single blinded clinical trial. Materials and Methods: After institutional ethical committee approval, 100 patients physical status ASA I & II, of either sex, between 18-60 years, weighing between 40-60 kgs posted for upper limb surgeries around the elbow, forearm and hand were divide into two groups of 50 patients each. Group R (Ropivacaine group) received 0.75% isobaric ropivacaine 30 ml in supraclavicular brachial plexus block. Group B (Bupivacaine group) received 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine 30 ml in supraclavicular brachial plexus block by using peripheral nerve stimulator. Vitals, sensory, motor and analgesia score at pre-defined intervals intra-operatively were noted. Onset of analgesia, sensory & motor blockade, total duration of post-operative pain relief (VAS ≥ 5) and time of demand of first rescue analgesic were also noted along with any intra-operative complications, if any. Statistical Analysis: All the results were expressed as Mean ± SD. Statistical analysis was performed using Unpaired Student’s t-Test. Statistical significance was considered with a p value of ≤ 0.05. Results: Demographic profile and duration of surgery were comparable among the two groups. The mean time of onset of sensory block, onset of motor block and onset of analgesia were significant (p<0.05) in group R as compared to group B. The mean duration of sensory block and duration of post-operative analgesia were comparable between the two groups. However, the mean duration of motor block was significantly lower (p<0.05) in group R as compared to group B. the baseline hemodynamic variables and requirement of first analgesic dose and other adverse events were equivalent in both the group. Conclusion: Ropivacaine when compared with Bupivacaine, has faster onset of analgesia, sensory & motor blockade, significantly lesser duration of motor blockade. Ropivacaine also provides satisfactory post-operative analgesia with a stable hemodynamic profile similar to Bupivacaine with no undue adverse effects.