Prilocaine vs bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for urologic endoscopy: clinical trials & historical overview

Abstract

Introduction. In the evolving landscape of anesthetic practices for short-duration urologic procedures, the quest for an anesthetic agent that balances efficacy with minimal side effects remains a significant clinical challenge.The objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of 2% hyperbaric prilocaine and 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia.Materials and methods. A comparative analysis was performed in terms of onset and duration of sensory and motor block, incidence of side effects (hypotension and bradycardia), and overall patient outcomes in urologic endoscopy. The research sample was divided into two groups, each consisting of 20 patients. In one case, spinal anesthesia was performed using 2% hyperbaric prilocaine (40 mg) + fentanyl 25 mcg, in the other – 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (10 mg) + fentanyl 25 mcg.Results. Prilocaine offers a faster onset of sensory and motor block and a shorter duration of sensory block compared to bupivacaine. Prilocaine also showed a quicker recovery of full motor function and had a significantly lower incidence of side effects such as hypotension and bradycardia.Conclusion. These results suggest that 2% hyperbaric prilocaine could be an alternative to 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for urologic endoscopy, especially in procedures requiring quick recovery. The promising results of prilocaine in such short-duration surgeries can also prompt a reevaluation of anesthesia protocols across various surgical interventions and lead to enhanced patient outcomes, emphasizing safety, comfort, and efficacy of surgical care.