Abstract
Background: Spinal anaesthesia is a common technique for lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries, offering rapid onset and reliable anaesthesia. Bupivacaine, a potent local anaesthetic, has been a standard agent but is associated with potential cardiotoxicity. Ropivacaine, a newer alternative, provides similar anaesthesia with reduced cardiovascular risks. Both agents are used in varying concentrations for different surgical needs. This study focuses on comparing intrathecal isobaric 0.5% bupivacaine with intrathecal isobaric 0.75% ropivacaine to evaluate their efficacy, onset and duration of sensory and motor block, hemodynamic stability, and side effect profile in patients undergoing lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries.
Objective: To compare the onset, duration, hemodynamic stability, and adverse effects of intrathecal isobaric 0.5% bupivacaine and isobaric 0.75% ropivacaine.
Material and Methods: A total of 60 patients undergoing lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries were divided into two groups. Group B received 0.5% bupivacaine, and Group R received 0.75% ropivacaine. Onset, duration, hemodynamic changes, and adverse effects were recorded.
Results: Bupivacaine showed faster onset and longer duration but with greater hemodynamic impact and adverse effects. Ropivacaine offered more stable hemodynamic and fewer side effects.
Conclusion: Bupivacaine may be preferred for longer surgeries, while ropivacaine is better for patients with cardiovascular risks.
Keywords: Spinal Anaesthesia, Bupivacaine, Ropivacaine, Lower Abdominal Surgeries, Lower Limb Surgeries, Intrathecal Anaesthesia, Hemodynamic Stability and Sensory and Motor Block