Levobupivacaine versus Racemic Bupivacaine in Spinal Anaesthesia for Urological Surgery

Intravesical bupivacaine in reducing catheter-related bladder discomfort and lower urinary tract symptoms after transurethral surgery: A randomized controlled trial

Introduction

The objectives of this study were to investigate the efficacy and safety of intravesical bupivacaine instillation in reducing catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) after transurethral surgery.

Methods

The study enrolled 100 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I-III patients aged ≥18 years undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate or transurethral resection of the bladder tumor, randomly assigned to Group B (intravesical bupivacaine) or Group S (saline). Double blinding was employed. Independent variables included demographics, surgery type, ASA grade, and intervention details. Dependent variables comprised CRBD severity, Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC), Pelvic Pain Urgency Frequency (PUF), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, need for additional analgesics, and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). SPSS version 19 was used for analysis with a significance level of P < 0.05. Side effects such as hematuria were also recorded.

Results

Group B reported significantly lower "moderate" CRBD immediately (2% vs. 40%, P < 0.001) and at 12 h (0% vs. 18%, P = 0.003) post-instillation compared to Group S and also required fewer additional analgesics (4% vs. 46%). The PPBC at catheter removal also favored Group B (P = 0.003) and day 1 (P < 0.001). The PUF scores were also significantly lower in Group B at catheter removal (P = 0.001) and at day 1 (P = 0.028). The IPSS was also significantly lower in the Group B on day 1 (P = 0.003) and 7 (P = 0.001). The VAS scores also favored the Group B consistently and although the side effects were higher in Group B but this was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Intravesical bupivacaine administration has the potential to alleviate CRBD and postoperative LUTS following lower urinary tract transurethral electrosurgery. The study's findings underscore the importance of personalized pain management strategies in optimizing the patient comfort during the postoperative recovery.

Effects of scalp block with bupivacaine versus levobupivacaine on haemodynamic response to head pinning and comparative efficacies in postoperative analgesia: A randomized controlled trial

Objective

This study was performed to determine the effects of scalp blocks with bupivacaine versus levobupivacaine on the haemodynamic response during craniotomy and the efficacies and analgesic requirements of these drugs postoperatively.

Methods

This randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind study included 90 patients (age, 18–85 years; American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, I or II). The patients were randomly divided into three groups: those who received 20 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine (Group B, n = 30), 20 mL of 0.5% levobupivacaine (Group L, n = 30), or saline as a placebo (Group C, n = 30). Scalp blocks were performed 5 min before head pinning. The primary outcome was the mean arterial pressure (MAP), and the secondary outcomes were the heart rate (HR), visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, and additional intraoperative and postoperative drug use. Postoperative pain was evaluated using a 10-cm VAS.

Results

During head pinning and incision, the MAP and HR were significantly higher in Group C. The additional drug requirement for intraoperative hypertension and tachycardia was significantly higher in Group C. There were no significant differences in MAP, HR, or VAS scores between Groups B and L.

Conclusion

Both bupivacaine and levobupivacaine can be effectively and safely used for scalp blocks to control haemodynamic responses and postoperative pain.

Comparison of analgesic and systemic effects of bupivacaine, methadone, or bupivacaine/methadone administered epidurally in conscious sheep

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the combination of bupivacaine and methadone administered epidurally in sheep.

METHODS

Six healthy female mixed-breed sheep weighing 35-46 kg and aged 12-18 months were included. Each sheep was assigned to receive three treatments: 0.5 mg/kg 0.25% bupivacaine (BP), 0.3 mg/kg 1% methadone (MT) or 0.25 mg/kg bupivacaine and 0.15 mg/kg methadone (BPMT). All drugs were injected into the lumbosacral space through an epidural catheter. Each animal received each treatment at random. Heart rate, arterial blood pressure (systolic, diastolic and mean), respiratory rate, rectal temperature, analgesia, sedation and motor block were determined before treatment and at predetermined intervals.

RESULTS

The duration of analgesia was 240, 220, and 180 min for BP, MT and BPMT, respectively (P < 0.05). Motor block for all agents was mild to moderate. None or the treatments significantly altered the heart rate, blood pressure or respiratory rate.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that lumbosacral epidural administration of bupivacaine, methadone or a combination of the two drugs can provide perioperative analgesia in sheep as part of their management for surgical procedures in the flank and hindlimbs.

Bispectral index-guided general anaesthesia in combination with interscalene block reduces desflurane consumption in arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a clinical comparison of bupivacaine versus levobupivacaine

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study was to compare the influence of an interscalene brachial plexus block (ISB) performed with either bupivacaine or levobupivacaine in conjunction with general anaesthesia (GA) on desflurane consumption, which was titrated to maintain the recovery profiles and postoperative analgesia while also keeping the bispectral index score (BIS) between 40 and 60 in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

METHODS

Sixty patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery were prospectively randomized to receive GA with desflurane alone (group C) or in combination with a preoperative ISB by either bupivacaine 0.25 % (group B) 40 ml or levobupivacaine 0.25 % (group L) 40 ml. BIS scores or respiratory and hemodynamic parameters during the operation, recovery characteristics, consumed doses of desflurane and pain intensities were evaluated.

RESULTS

The eye opening time was 4.0 ± 2.5 minutes for group B, 4.6 ± 2.4 minutes for group L, and 6.2 ± 2.1 minutes for group C (p < 0.05). Group B and group L saved 36 % and 25 % desflurane per unit time respectively when compared with group C (p < 0.001and p < 0.05) while the mean pain scores and analgesic requirements the first day after surgery were higher in group C (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Because of lower desflurane consumption, a superior recovery profile, and a high degree of patient acceptance, general anaesthesia in combination with interscalene block may be preferred in arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial registration number is ACTRN12613000381785.

Hemodynamic impact of isobaric levobupivacaine versus hyperbaric bupivacaine for subarachnoid anesthesia in patients aged 65 and older undergoing hip surgery

BACKGROUND

The altered hemodynamics, and therefore the arterial hypotension is the most prevalent adverse effect after subarachnoid anesthesia. The objective of the study was to determine the exact role of local anesthetic selection underlying spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension in the elderly patient. We conducted a descriptive, observational pilot study to assess the hemodynamic impact of subarachnoid anesthesia with isobaric levobupivacaine versus hyperbaric bupivacaine for hip fracture surgery.

DESCRIPTION

Hundred twenty ASA status I-IV patients aged 65 and older undergoing hip fracture surgery were enrolled. The primary objective of our study was to compare hemodynamic effects based on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and dyastolic blood pressure (DBP) values, heart rate (HR) and hemoglobin (Hb) and respiratory effects based on partial oxygen saturation (SpO2%) values. The secondary objective was to assess potential adverse events with the use of levobupivacaine versus bupivacaine. Assessments were performed preoperatively, at 30 minutes into surgery, at the end of anesthesia and at 48 hours and 6 months after surgery. Among intraoperative events, the incidence of hypotension was statistically significantly higher (p <0.05) in group BUPI (38.3%) compared to group LEVO (13.3%). There was a decrease (p <0.05) in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 30 minutes intraoperatively (19% in group BUPI versus 17% in group LEVO). SpO2% increased at 30 minutes after anesthesia onset (1% in group BUPI versus 1.5% in group LEVO). Heart rate (HR) decreased at 30 minutes after anesthesia onset (5% in group BUPI versus 9% in group L). Hemoglobin (Hb) decreased from time of operating room (OR) admission to the end of anesthesia (9.3% in group BUPI versus 12.5% in group LEVO). The incidence of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion was 13.3% in group BUPI versus 31.7% in group LEVO, this difference was statistically significant. Among postoperative events, the incidence of congestive heart failure (CHF) was significantly higher in group BUPI (8,3%). At 6 months after anesthesia, no differences were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the hemodynamic stability and lower incidence of intraoperative hypotension observed, levobupivacaine could be the agent of choice for subarachnoid anesthesia in elderly patients.

Spinal anesthesia for knee arthroscopy using isobaric bupivacaine and levobupivacaine: anesthetic and neuroophthalmological assessment

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to compare the sensory, motor, and neuroophthalmological effects of isobaric levobupivacaine and bupivacaine when intrathecally administered.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, double-blind, randomized study with 60 ASA grade I-II patients aged 18-65 years awaiting knee arthroscopy under spinal anesthesia. Patients received 12.5 mg of isobaric bupivacaine or levobupivacaine. Several features were recorded.

RESULTS

No significant intergroup differences were observed for ASA classification, time to micturate, demographic data, surgery duration, and patient/surgeon satisfaction. Similar hemodynamic parameters and sensory/motor blockade duration were found for both groups. There were no neuroophthalmological effects in either group. Sensory (P = 0.018) and motor blockade onset (P = 0.003) was faster in the bupivacaine group. T6 (T2-T12) and T3 (T2-T12) were the highest sensory block levels for the levobupivacaine and bupivacaine groups, respectively (P = 0.008). It took less time to regain maximum motor blockade in the bupivacaine group (P = 0.014), and the levobupivacaine group required use of analgesia earlier (P = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Isobaric bupivacaine and levobupivacaine are analogous and well-tolerated anesthetics for knee arthroscopy. However, for bupivacaine, sensory and motor blockade onset was faster, and greater sensory blockade with a longer postoperative painless period was achieved.

Intrathecal bupivacaine or levobupivacaine: which should be used for elderly patients?

OBJECTIVES

To compare two intrathecal anaesthetics, bupivacaine and levobupivacaine, for their effects on motor and sensory blockade and haemodynamics in patients aged ≥ 65 years undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate (TUR-P) or transurethral resection of the urinary bladder (TUR-M).

METHODS

Patients scheduled to undergo TUR-P or TUR-M were randomized to receive either 3 ml (15 mg) 0.5% isobaric levobupivacaine (group L) or 3 ml (15 mg) of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (group B) for spinal anaesthesia. The onset time, maximum level and time to reach the maximum level of sensory and motor blockade were recorded. Changes to haemodynamic parameters were also recorded.

RESULTS

The study randomized 100 patients: 57 to group L and 43 to group B. Levobupivacaine did not cause any significant changes in haemodynamic parameters, including systolic blood pressure, and showed a similar sensory block onset time compared with bupivacaine, but it had a significantly longer motor block onset time compared with bupivacaine.

CONCLUSION

These current findings suggest that levobupivacaine can be used as a substitute for bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia in elderly patients ≥ 65 years of age undergoing elective TUR-P or TUR-M operations.

Clinical profile of levobupivacaine in regional anesthesia: A systematic review

The quest for searching newer and safer anesthetic agents has always been one of the primary needs in anesthesiology practice. Levobupivacaine, the pure S (−)-enantiomer of bupivacaine, has strongly emerged as a safer alternative for regional anesthesia than its racemic sibling, bupivacaine. Levobupivacaine has been found to be equally efficacious as bupivacaine, but with a superior pharmacokinetic profile. Clinically, levobupivacaine has been observed to be well-tolerated in regional anesthesia techniques both after bolus administration and continuous post-operative infusion. The incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is rare when it is administered correctly. Most ADRs are related to faulty administration technique (resulting in systemic exposure) or pharmacological effects of anesthesia; however, allergic reactions can also occur rarely. The available literary evidence in anesthesia practice indicates that levobupivacaine and bupivacaine produce comparable surgical sensory block, similar adverse side effects and provision of similar labor analgesia with good comparable maternal and fetal outcome. The present review aims to discuss the pharmacokinetic and pharmacological essentials of the safer profile of levobupivacaine as well as to discuss the scope and indications of levobupivacaine based on current clinical evidence.

A comparison of spinal anesthesia characteristics following intrathecal bupivacaine or levobupivacaine in lumbar disc surgery

PURPOSE

While bupivacaine is the most frequently used local anesthetic for spinal anesthesia, use of levobupivacaine in clinical practice has advanced recently. The aim of our study was to compare the clinical and anesthetic effects of isobaric bupivacaine and isobaric levobupivacaine when administered intrathecally in patients undergoing lumbar disc surgery.

METHODS

ASA I-III, 60 patients were enrolled in this study. Only patients with unilateral single-level (L4-5) lumbar disc hernia were selected and operated in each group and all were operated by the same surgeon. Patients were randomized into two groups, as group B (n = 30): 15 mg 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine, or group L (n = 30): 15 mg 0.5% isobaric levobupivacaine received intrathecally. The level of sensory block dermatome, degree of motor block, intraoperative sensory and motor block characteristics, and postoperative recovery times of spinal anesthesia were evaluated. The satisfaction scores of the surgeon and patients, intraoperative hemodynamic changes, intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded.

RESULTS

The maximum level of sensory blockade was significantly higher in the levobupivacaine group (group L 7 ± 1.63, group B 8.6 ± 1.76 thoracic dermatome, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the onset time of sensory (group L 6 ± 3 min, group B 9 ± 4 min) and motor (in group L 7 ± 3 min, in group B 10 ± 4 min) blockade (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding duration of operation (group L 49 ± 7.3 min, group B 52 ± 8.1, p > 0.05). Recovery times of sensory (175 ± 57 min) and motor (216 ± 59 min) blockade were significantly shorter in the levobupivacaine group (p < 0.05). Mobilization was also earlier in the levobupivacaine group (339 ± 90 min, p < 0.05). Patients' satisfaction and intraoperative, postoperative complications were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that block recovery time was shorter in the levobupivacaine group, this may be a disadvantage for longer operative procedures. But with proper patient selection this can be eliminated. Recovery time was shorter in levobupivacaine group. Therefore, postoperative neurological examination can be done earlier. In addition, early mobilization can be an advantage for postoperative recovery.

Comparison of two different doses of intrathecal levobupivacaine for transurethral endoscopic surgery

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of two different spinal isobaric levobupivacaine doses on spinal anesthesia characteristics and to find the minimum effective dose for surgery in patients undergoing transurethral resection (TUR) surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty male patients undergoing TUR surgery were included in the study and were randomized into two equal groups: Group LB10 (n=25): 10 mg 0.5% isobaric levobupivacaine (2 ml) and Group LB15 (n=25): 15 mg 0.75% isobaric levobupivacaine (2 ml). Spinal anesthesia was administered via a 25G Quincke spinal needle through the L3-4 intervertebral space. Sensorial block levels were evaluated using the 'pin-prick test', and motor block levels were evaluated using the 'Bromage scale'. The sensorial and motor block characteristics of patients during intraoperative and postoperative periods and recovery time from spinal anesthesia were evaluated.

RESULTS

In three cases in the Group LB10, sensorial block did not reach the T10 level. Complete motor block (Bromage=3) did not occur in eight cases in the Group LB10 and in five cases in the Group LB15. The highest sensorial dermatomal level detected was higher in Group LB15. In Group LB15, sensorial block initial time and the time of complete motor block occurrence were significantly shorter than Group LB10. Hypotension was observed in one case in Group LB15. No significant difference between groups was detected in two segments of regression times: the time to S2 regression and complete sensorial block regression time. Complete motor block regression time was significantly longer in Group LB15 than in Group LB10 (p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Our findings showed that the minimum effective spinal isobaric levobupivacaine dose was 10 mg for TUR surgery.

Effects of bupivacaine versus levobupivacaine on pulmonary function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease undergoing urologic surgery: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There are limited data to determine the impact of subarachnoid blockade with local anesthetics on perioperative pulmonary function. The effects of local anesthetics used in spinal anesthesia are very important in terms of respiratory function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of bupivacaine versus levobupivacaine on pulmonary function in patients with COPD undergoing urologic surgery.

METHODS

Patients were randomized into 2 groups: group B (n = 25) received 3 mL of hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine; group L (n = 25) received 3 mL of isobaric 0.5% levobupivacaine. Both agents were administered intrathecally. Forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), vital capacity (VC), and FEV1/FVC ratio were measured using spirometry 10 and 30 minutes after spinal anesthesia and 30 minutes after completion of the operation. An arterial blood gas test was performed before and after spinal anesthesia.

RESULTS

Fifty male patients aged 40 to 80 years completed the study. There were no differences in the results of preoperative and postoperative FVC, FEV1, PEFR, VC, FEV1/FVC ratio, and arterial blood gas between the bupivacaine (n = 25) and levobupivacaine (n = 25) groups. However, patients who took bupivacaine showed a significant decrease in intraoperative PEFR at 30 minutes compared with baseline, a result not seen in patients who took levobupivacaine (P = 0.036 and P = 0.282, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In 50 patients with moderate COPD undergoing urologic surgery, hyperbaric bupivacaine caused a decrease in intraoperative PEFR compared with baseline because of higher level block; however, the effects of hyperbaric bupivacaine and isobaric levobupivacaine on pulmonary function in these patients showed equally effective potencies for spinal anesthesia.

Update on local anesthetics: focus on levobupivacaine

In recent years levobupivacaine, the pure S (−)-enantiomer of bupivacaine, emerged as a safer alternative for regional anesthesia than its racemic parent. It demonstrated less affinity and strength of depressant effects onto myocardial and central nervous vital centers in pharmacodynamic studies, and a superior pharmacokinetic profile. Clinically, levobupivacaine is well tolerated in a variety of regional anesthesia techniques both after bolus administration and continuous postoperative infusion. Reports of toxicity with levobupivacaine are scarce and occasional toxic symptoms are usually reversible with minimal treatment with no fatal outcome. Yet, levobupivacaine has not entirely replaced bupivacaine in clinical practice. In anesthesia and analgesia practice, levobupivacaine and bupivacaine produce comparable surgical sensory block with similar adverse side effects, and equal labor pain control with comparable maternal and fetal outcome. The equipotency of the two drugs has been recently questioned, prompting clinicians to increase the dose of levobupivacaine in an attempt to ensure adequate anesthesia and analgesia and offsetting, therefore, the advantages of less motor block with levobupivacaine. In this review we aim to discuss the pharmacological essentials of the safer profile of levobupivacaine, and analyze the evidence regarding the current clinical indications.

Influence of positioning on plain levobupivacaine spinal anesthesia in cesarean section

Background. The behaviour of isobaric levobupivacaine in relation to gravity when used in obstetric spinal anesthesia is unclear. Methods. 46 women with ASA physical status 1 undergoing cesarean section were randomly allocated to 2 groups. Spinal anesthesia with 12.5 mg levobupivacaine was performed in the sitting position in all women. Those in the first group were placed in the supine position immediately after the injection, while those in the second group were asked to remain seated for 2 minutes before assuming the supine position. The sensory block level, the onset of sensory and motor blocks, the regression of the sensory block for 2 dermatomes of the sensory block, the first request for analgesics, and the regression of motor block were recorded. Results. No differences in onset times, sensory level, or Bromage score were observed between the two groups. The time of first analgesic request was earlier in the seated group (supine 131 ± 42 min, seated 106 ± 29 min, P = .02). Conclusion. Isobaric levobupivacaine in women at term produces a subarachnoid block the dermatomal level of which does not depend on gravitational forces.

The median effective dose of bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, and ropivacaine after intrathecal injection in lower limb surgery

BACKGROUND

Intrathecal anesthesia is commonly used for lower limb surgery. Bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, and ropivacaine have all been used as intrathecal drugs, but their relative potency in this context has not been fully determined. In this study, we determined the median effective dose (ED(50)) of these three local anesthetics for intrathecal anesthesia in lower limb surgery and hence their relative potencies.

METHODS

Seventy-five patients scheduled for lower limb surgery under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia were randomly allocated to one of three groups receiving intrathecal bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, or ropivacaine. The dose of local anesthetic was varied using up-down sequential allocation technique. The dose for the first patient in each group was 8 mg, and the dosing increment was set at 1 mg. Subsequent doses in each group were determined by the outcome in the previous patient using success or failure of the spinal anesthesia as the primary end point. A success was recorded if a bilateral T12 sensory block to cold was attained within 20 min after intrathecal injection, and the surgery proceeded successfully until at least 50 min after the intrathecal injection without supplementary epidural injection. The ED(50) was calculated using the method of Dixon and Massey.

RESULTS

The ED(50)s were 5.50 mg for bupivacaine (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.90-6.10 mg), 5.68 mg for levobupivacaine (95% CI: 4.92-6.44 mg), and 8.41 mg for ropivacaine (95% CI: 7.15-9.67 mg) in intrathecal anesthesia. The relative anesthetic potency ratios are 0.97 (95% CI: 0.81-1.17) for levobupivacaine/bupivacaine, 0.65 (95% CI: 0.54-0.80) for ropivacaine/bupivacaine, and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.55-0.84) for ropivacaine/levobupivacaine.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that in intrathecal anesthesia for lower limb surgery, ropivacaine is less potent than levobupivacaine and bupivacaine, whereas the potency is similar between levobupivacaine and bupivacaine.

The effects of intrathecal levobupivacaine and bupivacaine in the elderly

The objective of this study was to compare the block durations and haemodynamic effects associated with intrathecal levobupivacaine or bupivacaine in elderly patients undergoing transurethral prostate surgery. Eighty patients were prospectively randomised to receive plain 1.5 ml levobupivacaine 0.5% (group levobupivacaine) or 1.5 ml plain bupivacaine 0.5% (group bupivacaine) in combination with fentanyl 0.3 ml (15 microg) for spinal anaesthesia. The time to reach T10 and peak sensory block level, and to maximum motor block were significantly shorter in group bupivacaine compared to group levobupivacaine (p < 0.05). Peak sensory block level was also significantly higher in group bupivacaine. In group bupivacaine, mean arterial pressure was significantly lower than group levobupivacaine, starting from 10 min until 30 min after injection (p < 0.05). Hypotension and nausea were less common in group levobupivacaine than group bupivacaine (p < 0.05). Because of the better haemodynamic stability and fewer side-effects associated with levobupivacaine, it may be preferred for spinal anaesthesia in elderly patients.

Postoperative analgesic effect of locally infiltrated levobupivacaine in fleur-de-Lys abdominoplasty

BACKGROUND

This prospective double-blind study compared the analgesic properties of locally infiltrated levobupivacaine with those of ropivacaine in fleur-de-lys abdominoplasty.

METHODS

A total of 46 patients subjected to fleur-de-lis abdominoplasty under general anesthesia were included. The patients were randomly assigned to receive local infiltration of the peri-incisional and dissected area with the following solutions: group A (placebo group, n = 15) received 100 ml of saline 0.9%, group B (n = 15) received 50 ml of ropivacaine 0.75% in 50 ml of saline 0.9%, and group C (n = 16) received 60 ml of levobupivacaine 0.25% in 40 ml of saline 0.9%. The anesthetic technique was standardized for all the groups. The patients were asked to assess their pain at rest on a visual analog scale (VAS) at 2 h, 4 h, and 24 h postoperatively. Data were analyzed by mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA), simple ANOVA, and repeated measures ANOVA, followed by Tukey's test.

RESULTS

Groups B and C did not differ significantly in their VAS scores at 2 h postoperatively, but group C experienced significantly less pain (p < 0.001) than either the control group or the B group at 4 h and 24 h postoperatively. Group B also registered significantly lower VAS scores (p < 0.001) than the placebo group at 4 h postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

It is concluded that for mini abdominoplasty, adequate analgesia is achieved for at least 4 h postoperatively by local tissue infiltration with either ropivacaine or levobupivacaine. However, in terms of intensity and duration of analgesia, levobupivacaine was found to be more effective than ropivacaine in reducing postoperative pain associated with mini abdominoplasty.

Levobupivacaine and fentanyl for spinal anaesthesia: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Levobupivacaine 0.5% and racemic bupivacaine 0.5% are equally effective in spinal anaesthesia. Fentanyl has been used as an adjunct to racemic bupivacaine in spinal anaesthesia. At the time this study was designed, there was no published study on the intrathecal use of 0.5% levobupivacaine with fentanyl.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind study compared the clinical efficacy, motor block and haemodynamic effects of using 2.6 mL of 0.5% levobupivacaine alone (25 patients) and 2.3 mL of 0.5% levobupivacaine with fentanyl 15 microg in 0.3 mL (25 patients) for spinal anaesthesia in urological surgery. The study solution was injected into the subarachnoid space at the L3-L4 interspace.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in the haemodynamic changes, and quality of sensory and motor block. Anaesthesia was adequate and patient satisfaction was good in all cases. Side-effects were minor and infrequent with both regimes.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that 2.3 mL of 0.5% levobupivacaine with fentanyl 15 microg is as effective as 2.6 mL of 0.5% levobupivacaine alone in spinal anaesthesia for urological surgery. Further studies may be directed to find the optimal combination of levobupivacaine and opioid with maximal haemodynamic stability and least motor block.

[Levobupivacaine for regional anesthesia. A systematic review]

Levobupivacaine [S(-)bupivacaine], the levorotatory S-enantiomer of racemic bupivacaine, is commercially available in the U.S. and in most European countries. We performed a systematic review (MEDLINE database) and identified 88 articles on the clinical application of levobupivacaine in more than 3,000 patients. The use of levobupivacaine is described for epidural, caudal, and spinal anesthesia, for peripheral nerve blocks, for ophthalmic and dental anesthesia, for different pediatric indications and for intravenous regional anesthesia. In these regional techniques, levobupivacaine was used for all common indications in a wide range of clinical settings. Epidural levobupivacaine was combined with fentanyl, morphine, sufentanil, epinephrine, and clonidine, spinal levobupivacaine was combined with sufentanil, fentanyl, and epinephrine. In most studies, levobupivacaine was compared to bupivacaine and/or ropivacaine.

Levobupivacaine Versus Ropivacaine Infiltration Analgesia for Mastopexy

A prospective double-blind study was conducted to compare the analgesic properties of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine in a bilaterally symmetrical mastopexy model. Both of these 2 long-acting local anesthetic amides are associated with lower cardiac and central nervous system toxicity than racemic bupivacaine, a widely used agent for long-lasting perioperative analgesia in esthetic procedures. In this study, each of the 18 patients undergoing bilateral mastopexy under conscious sedation received preoperative infiltration with levobupivacaine in 1 breast and equal volume of ropivacaine in the other. Patients were requested to assess their pain separately in each side every 2 hours and for 12 hours postoperatively on a visual analog scale. Overall analgesia achieved up to 12 hours postoperatively was found to be statistically different between the 2 local anesthetic factors in favor of levobupivacaine. At 2 hours postoperatively, no difference was found between the 2 local anesthetic agents in terms of analgesic efficacy (P = 0.298). However, postoperative pain scores recorded after infiltration with levobupivacaine were significantly lower than pain scores for the ropivacaine-infiltrated sides (P<0.001) at all other timeframes. Both anesthetics provided satisfactory analgesia for at least 10 hours, but constantly low pain scores were recorded for levobupivacaine for 10 hours postoperatively, whereas for ropivacaine only for 6 hours. At 12 hours, 66% of patients needed oral analgesia for pain in the ropivacaine-infiltrated breast. It is concluded that levobupivacaine is more effective for local infiltrative analgesia in mastopexy than ropivacaine, providing longer-lasting postoperative analgesia.

L-Bupivacaine 0.5% vs. racemic 0.5% bupivacaine for caudal epidural analgesia in horses

Bupivacaine is available as a racemic mixture of its enantiomers, d-bupivacaine and l-bupivacaine (LB). The aim of this randomized, double-blind study was to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of S(-)-bupivacaine compared with standard racemic bupivacaine (RB) in horses under caudal epidural analgesia. Two treatments were administered to each horse, with a 2-week interval between subsequent treatments. Treatment 1 consisted of 0.5% LB at a dose of 0.06 mg/kg of body weight, and treatment 2 consisted of 0.5% RB at a dose of 0.06 mg/kg of body weight. Epidural injections were given in all animals between the first and second coccygeal vertebra. Heart rate (HR), arterial pressures, respiratory rate (RR), rectal temperature (RT), analgesia, and motor blocking were determined before drug administration (basal) and 5, 10, 15 and 30 min after drug administration, and at 30 min intervals thereafter. There were no significant differences between the two treatments in the quality of sensory and motor block. The duration of analgesia was 320 +/- 30 min (mean +/- SD) for RB and 360 +/- 42 min for LB. HRs and RRs, arterial pressures and RT did not change (P < 0.05) significantly from basal values after epidural administration of LB or RB. This study supports that 0.5% LB is an effective alternative to RB in caudal epidural analgesia in conscious, standing horses. The use of LB vs. RB warrants further investigation, particularly for long-lasting surgery in the perineal region.