Background:
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.

Methods:
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.

Results:
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.

Conclusions:
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.