Comparison of spinal anaesthesia with 0.75% ropivacaine and 0.5% bupivacaine for elective caesarean section
More details
Hide details
Department of Anaesthesiology, Sosnowiec, Poland
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Therapy in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
Department of Gynaecology, Obstetrics and Gynaecological Oncology in Bytom, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
Piotr Knapik   

Oddział Kliniczny Kardioanestezji i Intensywnej Terapii SUM, 41-800 Zabrze, ul. Szpitalna 2; tel. +48 (32) 273 27 31
Ann. Acad. Med. Siles. 2009;63:15–22
The aim of this study was to compare clinical effi cacy and safety of hyperbaric ropivacaine and hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia for elective cesarean section.

A prospective, randomized study was performed in 75 patients with low preoperative risk, scheduled for elective caesarean section, randomly allocated in two groups (ropivacaine – 36 patients, bupivacaine – 39 patients). Spinal anaesthesia was performed in sedentary position, at the L3/L4 level and 2 mls of 0.75% hyperbaric ropivacaine or 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine was administered. The influence of the blockade on the function of the cardiovascular and respiratory system, the need for additional medications, side-effects, the quality of the blockade as well as spread and regression were assessed. The evaluation of anaesthesia was performed by both the patients and the surgeons. All data underwent statistical analysis. Statistical significance was noted if p value was below 0,05.

Haemodynamic parameters and respiratory function were similiar in both groups. There were no differences between groups regarding side-effects, the need for additional medication and the quality of the blockade. Spread and regression of motor and sensory blockade and their duration was similar. The evaluation of the anaesthesia by the patients and the surgeons was similar. Both local anaesthetic agents provided sufficient, safe and satisfactory spinal anaesthesia for elective caesarean section.

Spinal administration of 2 ml of plain hyperbaric 0,75% ropivacaine and hyperbaric 0,5% bupivacaine provides safe anaesthesia for caesarean section, satisfactory analgesia and good surgical conditions. Ropivacaine offers no significant advantage over bupivacaine during spinal anaesthesia for elective caesarean section.

Reroń A, Gołąbek D, Jaworski A, Szymik M, Mączka P. Ewolucja wskazań do cięcia cesarskiego. Przegląd GinekologicznoPołożniczy 2005; 5: 25-31.
Chung CJ, Choi SR, Yeo KH, Park HS, Lee SI, Chin YJ. Hyperbaric spinal ropivacaine for cesarean delivery: a comparision to hyperbaric bupivacaine. Anesth Analg 2001; 93: 157-161.
Gautier P, De Kock M, Huberty L, Demir T, Izydorczic M, Vanderick B. Comparison of the eff ects of intrathecal ropivacaine, levobupivacaine, and bupivacaine for caesarean section. Br J Anaesth 2003; 91: 684-689.
Khaw KS, Ngan Kee WD, Wong M, Ng F, Lee A. Spinal ropivacaine for cesarean delivery: a comparison of hyperbaric and plain solutions. Anesth Analg 2002; 94: 680-685.
Sanli S, Yegin A, Kayacan N, Yilmaz M, Coskunfi rat N, Karsli B. Eff ects of hyperbaric spinal ropivacaine for cesarean section: with or without fentanyl. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2005; 22: 457-461.
Danelli G, Fanelli G, Berti M, Cornini A, Lacava L, Nuzzi M, Fanelli A.: Spinal Ropivacaine or Bupivacaine for Cesarean Delivery: A Prospective, randomized, Double-Blind Comparision. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2004; 29: 221-226.
Malinovsky JM, Charles F, Kick O, Lepage JY, Malinge M, Cozian A, Bouchot O, Pinaud M. Intrathecal anesthesia: ropivacaine versus bupivacaine. Anesth Analg 2000; 91: 1457-1460.
Gautier PE, De Kock M, Van Steenberge A, Poth N, Lahaye-Goff art B, Fanard L, Hody JL.: Intrathecal ropivacaine for ambulatory surgery. Anesthesiology 1999; 91: 1239-1245.
Khaw KS, Ngan Kee WD, Wong EL, Liu JY, Chung R. Spinal ropivacaine for cesarean section: dose-fi nding study. Anesthesiology 2000; 95: 1346-1350.
Whiteside JB, Burke D, Wildsmith JA. Comparision of ropivacaine 0,5% (in glucose 5%) with bupivacaine 0,5% (in glucose 8%) for spinal anaesthesia for elective surgery. Br J Anaesth.2003; 90: 304-308.
Whiteside JB, Burke D, Wildsmith JAW. Spinal anaesthesia with ropivacaine 5 mg/ml in glucose 10mg/ml or 50mg/ml. Br J Anaesth 2001; 86: 241-244.
Hansen TG. Ropivacaine: a pharmacological review. Expert Rev Neurother. 2004; 4: 781-791.
Owen MD, Dean LS. Ropivacaine. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2000; 1: 325-336.
Markham A, Faulds D. Ropivacaine. A review of its pharmacology and therapeutic use in regional anaesthesia. Drugs.
McClellan KJ, Faulds D. Ropivacaine: an update of its use in regional anaesthesia. Drugs 2000; 60: 1065-1093.
Levin A, Datta S, Camman WR. Intrathecal ropivacaine for labor analgesia: a comparision with bupivacaine. Anesth Analg. 1998; 87: 624-627.
Celleno D, Parpaglioni R, Frigo G, Barbati G. Intrathecal levobupivacaine and ropivacaine for cesarean section. Minerva Anestesiol 2005; 71: 521-525.
Parpaglioni R, Frigo G, Lemma A, Sebastian M, Barbati G, Celleno D. Minimum local anaesthetic dose (MLAD) of intrathecal levobupivacaine and ropivacaine for Cesarean section. Anaesthesia 2006; 61: 110-115.
Camorcia M, Capogna G, Columb MO. Minimum Local Analgesic Doses of Ropivacaine, Levobupivacaine, and bupivacaine for Intrathecal Labor Analgesia. Anesthesiology 2005; 102: 646-650.
Lim Y, Ocampo CE, Sia AT. A comparison of duration of analgesia of intrathecal 2.5 mg of bupivacaine, ropivacaine, and levobupivacaine in combined spinal epidural analgesia for patients in labor. Anesth Analg 2004; 98: 235-239.
Runza M, Albani A, Tagliabue M, Haiek M, LoPresti S, Birnbach DJ. Spinal anesthesia using hyperbaric 0,75% versus hyperbaric 1% bupivacaine for cesarean section. Anesth Analg 1998; 87: 1099-1103.
Richardson MG, Collins HV, Wissler RN. Intrathecal hypobaric versus hyperbaric bupivacaine with morphine for cesarean section. Anesth Analg 1998; 87: 336-340.
Gallo F, Alberti A, Fongaro A, Negri MG, Carlot A, Altafi ni L, Valenti S.: Spinal anesthesia in cesarean section: 1% versus 0,5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Minerva Anestesiol 1996; 62: 9-15.