| Summary: | We compared the clinical efficacy and safety of two doses of ropivacaine for spinal anesthesia in Chinese patients undergoing lower limb and lower abdominal surgery. In this randomized, open-label study, 40 patients were divided into two groups: group A received 3.5 mL (26.25 mg) of 0.75% glucose-free ropivacaine, and group B received 4.5 mL (33.75 mg). Sensory and motor blocks were assessed during and after surgery through to complete recovery. Seven standard measurements were taken: time to onset of sensory blocks; maximum sensory cephalad spread; time to maximum sensory block; maximum number of blocked segments; duration of sensory block at L3; time to onset of complete motor block; and duration until complete motor block recovery. Vital signs and any adverse effects related to spinal anesthesia were also recorded. No significant differences were found between the two groups: time to onset of sensory block at L3 in group A vs B (2.1 ± 9.6 vs 1.7 ± 7.3 minutes), maximum cephalad spread [T4-5 (C3-T11) vs T4 (C3-T8)], maximum number of blocked segments (18.0 ± 3.4 vs 19.8 ± 3.7), time to maximum sensory block (34.0 ± 22.9 vs 26.8 ± 17.9 minutes), duration of sensory block at L3 (251.2 ± 34.7 vs 277.3 ± 51.1 minutes), time to onset of complete motor block (13.4 ± 6.4 vs 10.3 ± 3.4 minutes), and time for complete recovery from motor block (264 ± 52.1 vs 292.5 ± 64.5 minutes). No significant differences in global hemodynamic changes were found during and after the operation. While shivering was more frequent in group B during the operation, the difference was not significant. Otherwise, there were no differences in adverse effects during and after surgery. We conclude that both doses of 0.75% glucose-free ropivacaine, 26.25 mg (3.5 mL) and 33.75 mg (4.5 mL), have the same efficacy and safety in Chinese patients undergoing spinal anesthesia for lower limb and lower abdominal surgery.
|
|---|