Abstract

Background: Spinal anaesthesia provides sensory as well as motor blockade. Levobupivacaine is less cardio toxic than bupivacaine, as it has decreased potency at the sodium channel. Ropivacaine is similar in chemical structure to bupivacaine, but it is less potent than bupivacaine. Intrathecal Ropivacaine is safe, has shorter duration of action than bupivacaine and lesser incidence of neurological symptoms as compared with intrathecal lignocaine. Literature suggest that potency of Ropivacaine is less when compared with levobupivacaine since it has lower lipid solubility, and thereby using an equipotency ratio of 1.5:1 between Ropivacaine and Levobupivacaine provides nearly similar efficacy outcome. Method: The study was carried out as prospective, interventional, double blind in 60 patients divided in two equal groups using equipotent doses of intrathecal hyperbaric Ropivacaine and hyperbaric Levobupivacaine (with ASA grading I and II). Results: The distribution of patients with respect to age, height, weight was statistically not significant in both the groups. (p value > 0.05). Mean time to onset of motor block was 25.07±1.97 minutes in group-L and 24.37±1.70 minutes in group-R. Average duration of motor block was 116.73±29.95 minutes in group-L and 112.93±15.40 minutes in group-R. Mean time to onset of sensory block was 17.07±1.93 minutes in group-L and 15.5 ± 1.81 minutes in group-R. Mean time to attain highest level of sensory block was 22.07±1.93 minutes in group-L and 20.5±1.81 minutes in group-R. Mean time to two segment regression of sensory block was 69±8.5 minutes in group-L and 61.83±6.31 minutes in group-R. Average duration of sensory block was 188.73±29.94 minutes in group-L and 192.2±36.01 minutes in group-R. There were no changes in vital parameters and oxygen saturation in the intra-operative and post-operative period. Mean duration of post-operative analgesia was 137.70±28.01 minutes in Group L and 131.2±38.97 minutes in Group R. Analgesic consumption for 24 hours postoperatively was similar in both the groups. It was observed that both the molecules showed similar time of onset of motor and sensory block and also nearly similar duration of motor and sensory blocks. Both the drugs were also found to be safe in terms of impact on hemodynamic parameters and no complications observed. Conclusion: Both drugs are reliable in terms of efficacy and safety and can be used interchangeably. Ropivacaine can be specifically used for population that is at higher risk of cardiac toxicity, without compromising on time of onset or duration of motor and sensory blocks.

• 1.   Bier A. Versucheuber Kokainiserung des Ruchenmarkes (Experiments on cocaine rash). Dtsche Z Chir. 1899;51:361–9.
• 2.   Bier A. On the current state of spinal anesthesia, its legitimacy, its advantages and disadvantages compared to other methods of anesthesia. Langenbeck’s Archiv fur Klinische Chirurgie. 1905; 77:198-208.
• 3.   G. Hocking, J.A.W. Wildsmith. Intrathecal drug spread. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2004;93(4):568–78.
• 4.   Barker AE. Clinical experiences with spinal analgesia in 100 cases. Br Med J 1907;1:665.
• 5.   Pitkin GP. Spinocain: the controllable spinal anaesthetic. Br Med J. 1929;2:189.
• 6.   McLeod GA, Burke D. Levobupivacaine. Anaesthesia. 2001 Apr;56(4):331-41
• 7.   Kulkarni KR et al. A comparative evaluation of hyperbaric ropivacaine versus hyperbaric bupivacaine for elective surgery under spinal anesthesia. Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology. 2014 April-June:30(2);238-42.
• 8.   Clinical trial NCT03142880. Spinal Marginally Hyperbaric Ropivacaine for Cesarean Delivery.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03142880
• 9.   Stefania Leone, Stefania Leone, Simone Di Cianni, Andrea Casati, Guido Fanelli Pharmacology, toxicology and clinical use of new long acting local anesthetics, ropivacaine and levobupivacaine. Acta Biomed 2008;79:92-105.
• 10.   Looseley A. Corning and cocaine: the advent of spinal anaesthesia. Grand Rounds. 9;L1–L4.
• 11.   Calatayud J, González Á. History of the Development and Evolution of Local Anesthesia Since the Coca Leaf. Anesthesiology. 2003;98:1503–8.
• 12.   Ruetsch YA, Böni T, Borgeat A. From cocaine to ropivacaine: the history of local anesthetic drugs. Curr Top Med Chem. 2001 Aug;1(3):175-82.
• 13.   Casati A, Putzu M. Bupivacaine, levobupivacaine and ropivacaine: are they clinically different? Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2005 Jun;19(2):247-68.
• 14.   Ang Li et al. Ropivacaine versus levobupivacaine in peripheral nerve block. Medicine. 2017;96:14.
• 15.   Khairnar P et al. Comparative efficacy of ropivacaine and levobupivacaine in combined femoral and lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block with adjuvant magnesium for post-operative analgesia. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2016 Aug;60(8):64-9.
• 16.   Charles PD et al. 0.5% levobupivacaine versus 0.5% ropivacaine: Are they different in ultrasoundguided sciatic block?. Saudi Journal of Anesthesia. 2015 January-March;9(1):3-8.
• 17.   P. Gautier, M. De Kock, L. Huberty, T. Demir, M. Izydorczic, B. Vanderick. Comparison of the effects of intrathecal ropivacaine, levobupivacaine, and bupivacaine for Caesarean section. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2003;91(5):684-9.
• 18.   Hanna M, Sloan P. A Comparison of Levobupivacaine and Ropivacaine for Interscalene and Femoral Nerve Blocks: A Randomized, DoubleBlind, Prospective Clinical Trial. J Anesthe Clinic Res. 2011;2:135.
• 19.   Khan A, Nanda H S, Chandra R. Levobupivacaine versus Ropivacaine: A Comparative Study of the Analgesic and Hemodynamic Spectrum. Int J Sci Stud. 2016;4(1):190-195.
• 20.   Khaw KS, NganKee WD, Wong M, Ng F, Lee A. Spinal ropivacaine for cesarean delivery: a comparison of hyperbaric and plain solutions. AnesthAnalg. 2002 Mar;94(3):680-5.
• 21.   P. Gautier, M. De Kock, L. Huberty et al. Comparison of the effects of intrathecal ropivacaine, levobupivacaine, and bupivacaine for Caesarean section. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2003;91(5):684-9.
• 22.   Luck JF, Fettes PDW, Wildsmith JAW. Spinal anaesthesia for elective surgery: a comparison of hyperbaric solutions of racemic bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, and ropivacaine. British journal of Anaesthesia. 2008;101(5):705-10.
• 23.   Gupta R et al. Comparative study of intrathecal hyperbaric versus isobaric ropivacaine: A randomized control trial. Saudi J Anaesth. 2013 JulSep;7(3):249–53.
• 24.   Mantouvalou M, Ralli S, Arnaoutoglou H, Tziris G, Papadopoulos G. Spinal anesthesia: Comparison of plain ropivacaine, bupivacaine and levobupivacaine for lower abdominal surgery. ActaAnaesth. Belg. 2008;59:65-71.
• 25.   Bigat Z, Boztug N, Karsli B, Cete N, Ertok E. Comparison of hyperbaric ropivacaine and hyperbaric bupivacaine in unilateral spinal anaesthesia. Clin Drug Investig. 2006;26(1):35-41.
• 26.   A Suri, G Sindwani, R Mane. Comparison of onset and duration of sensory and motor blockade between equipotent doses of 0.75% plain ropivacaine and 0.5% plain levobupivacaine in lower abdominal surgeries under epidural anaesthesia - A one year hospital based randomized clinical study.
• 27.   Greene NM. Distribution of local anesthetic solutions within the subarachnoid space. AnesthAnalg. 1985; 64:715–30.