Background: Spinal anaesthesia has been widely used since its introduction in 1898 due to its safety and advantages over general anaesthesia. However, traditional agents like bupivacaine have some disadvantages, including cardiovascular effects and longer duration of action. Ropivacaine has emerged as a potential alternative with reduced cardiovascular toxicity. The study was aimed to compare the efficacy and suitability of 0.75% hyperbaric ropivacaine with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine in patients undergoing lower limb and endoscopic urological surgeries, evaluating onset, quality, duration of block, and incidence of complications. Materials and Methods: A prospective randomized trial was conducted with 130 patients (65 per group) aged 16-60 years, ASA grades 1 & 2. Group B received 3.0 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine, while Group R received 3.0 ml of 0.75% hyperbaric ropivacaine. Onset of anaesthesia, quality of block, duration, hemodynamic parameters, and complications were assessed. Results: Ropivacaine showed faster sensory and motor recovery, better hemodynamic stability, and fewer side effects compared to bupivacaine. The onset of sensory block was slightly faster with bupivacaine (2.17 vs 2.54 minutes), but ropivacaine had a shorter duration of sensory (114.7 vs 158 minutes) and motor block (112 vs 130 minutes). Ropivacaine group experienced less hypotension (4.6% vs 7.7%) and no bradycardia or vomiting compared to the bupivacaine group. Conclusion: Hyperbaric ropivacaine 0.75% was found to be a comparable and safer alternative to hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% for patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery, offering faster recovery and better hemodynamic stability
Read full abstract