A double blind prospective study of effect of intrathecal ropivacaine 0.75% and bupivacaine 0.5% for lower limb orthopedic surgery in young patients

Prasad M. Sule, Shakuntala Basantwani


Background: Subarachnoid block is among the most versatile regional block available today. It is a very old and well established anesthetic technique that is simple to perform and has a high success rate and a good safety profile. The aim of the present study was to compare the characteristics of spinal block, adequacy of anaesthesia and side effects using intrathecal ropivacaine 0.75% and bupivacaine 0.5% in young patients undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery.

Methods: 60 adult patients of either sex (aged 18 to 60 years) were studied, ASA grade I and II were randomly assigned into two anaesthetic groups. Group X: received 3.5 ml of 0.75% isobaric ropivacaine and group Y: received 3.5 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. After induction, the various parameters of intrathecal block and adequacy of anaesthesia were studied.

Results: 0.75% isobaric ropivacaine had late onset of sensory and motor blockade as well as shorter duration of analgesia and anaesthesia with similar quality of block as compare to 0.5% bupivacaine. There was no significant change in the cardiovascular response to subarachnoid block. In present study, no adverse effects were noted in any of the patients in any group.

Conclusions: Isobaric ropivacaine at the concentration of 0.75% can be safely used as an alternative to 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine as long acting local anaesthetic in intrathecal block.


Intrathecal, Ropivacaine, Bupivacaine, Lower limb orthopedic surgery, Sensory and motor blockade, Analgesia, Anaesthesia

Full Text:



Stewart J, Kellett N, Castro D. The central nervous system and cardiovascular effects of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine in healthy volunteers. Anesth Analg. 2003;97:412-6.

Knudsen K, Beckman S, Blomberg S, Sjovall J Edvardsson N. Central nervous and cardiovascular effect of I.V. infusions of ropivacaine, bupivacaine and placebo in volunteers. Br J Anaesth. 1997;78:507-4.

Bardsley H, Gristwood R, Baker H, Watson N, Nimmo W. A comparison of the cardiovascular effects of levobupivacaine and racemic bupivacaine following intravenous administration to healthy voiunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;46:245-9.

Stienstra R. The place of ropivacaine in anesthesia. Acta Anaesthetic Belg. 2003;54:141-8.

Stefania L, Simone DC, Andrea C. Pharmacology, toxicology and clinical use of new long acting local anaesthetics ropivacaine and levobupivacaine. Acta Biomeis. 2008;79:92-105.

Kuthiala G, Chaudhary G. Ropivacaine: a review of its pharmacology and clinical use. Indian J Anesth. 2011;55:(2)104-10.

Corning JL. Spinal anesthesia and local medications of the cord. N Y Med J. 1885;42:483.

Hodgson PS, Neal JM, Pollock JE, Liu SS. The neurotoxicity of drugs given intrathecally (spinal). Anesth Analg. 1999;88:797-809.

Barash PG, Cullen BF, Stoelting RK editors. Clinical Anaesthesia; Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.4th edition; Philadelphia;2001:451-466.

Hiller A, Rosenberg PH. Transient neurological symptoms after spinal anaesthesia with 4% mepivacaine and 0.5% bupivacaine. Br J Anaesth. 1997;79:301-5.

Hampl KF, Schneider MC, Drasner K. Toxicity of spinal local anaesthetics. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 1999;12:559-64.

Ruetsch YA, Boni T, Borgeat A. From cocaine to ropivacaine: the history of local anesthetic drugs. Curr Top Med Chem. 2001;1:175-82.

Wille M. Intrathecal use of ropivacaine: a review. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 2004;55:251-9.

Mcconachie I, Mcgeachie J, Barrie J. Regional anaesthetic techniques. In: Thomas EJ, Knight PR, editors.Wylie and Churchill Davidson's - A Practice of Anesthesia. London: Arnold;2003;599-612.

Ying YL, Warwick D. Ngan K, Hang KC, Chi LS, Tony G. Spinal ropivacaine for lower limb surgery: a dose-response study. Anesth Analg. 2007;105:520-3.

Khaw KS, Ngan KWD, Wong EL, Liu JY, Chung R. Spinal ropivacaine for cesarean section: a dose-finding study. Anesthesiology. 2001;95:1346-50.

Van KJ, Veering B, Burm A. Spinal anesthesia with ropivacaine: a double-blind study on the efficacy and safety of 0.5% and 0.75% solutions in patients undergoing minor lower limb surgery. Anesth Analg. 1994;78:1125-30.

Delfino J, Pontes S, Gondim D, Do VN. Isobaric 0.5% bupivacaine and 0.5% ropivacaine in spinal anesthesia for orthopedic surgery: a comparative study. Rev Bras Anesth. 1999;49(3):160-4.

Whiteside JB, Burke D, Wildsmith JAW. Comparison of ropivacaine 0.5% (in glucose 5%) with bupivacaine 0.5% (in glucose 8%) for spinal anaesthesia for elective surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2003;90(3):304-8.

Neval B, Zekiye B, Bilge K, Nurdan S, Ertugrul E. Comparison of ropivacaine and bupivacaine for intrathecal anesthesia during outpatient arthroscopic surgery. J Clinic Anesth. 2006;18:521-5.

Kallio H, Snall EVT, Tuomas CA, Rosenberg PH. Comparison of hyperbaric and plain ropivacaine 15mg in spinal anaesthesia for lower limb surgery. British J Anaesthesia. 2004;93(5):664-9.

Singh S, Singh VP, Jain M, Gupta K, Rastogi B, Abrol S. Intrathecal 0.75% isobaric ropivacaine versus 0.5% heavy bupivacaine for elective cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. J Pak Med Students. 2012;2(2):75-80.

Mcnamee DA, Mclelland AM, Scott S, Milligan KR, Westman L, Gustafsson U. Spinal anaesthesia: a comparison of plain ropivacaine 5 mg ml-1 with bupivacaine 5 mg ml-1 for major orthopaedic surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2002;89:702-6.

Şahin A, Çomlekci M. The comparison of hyperbaric bupivacaine and ropivacaine usage in spinal anesthesia at hip and lower extremity surgery. J Contemp Med. 2013;3(1):36-41.

Gautier P, De KM, Van SA, Poth N, Lahaye B, Fanard L, Hody J. Intrathecal ropivacaine for ambulatory surgery a comparison between intrathecal bupivacaine and intrathecal ropivacaine for knee arthroscopy. Anesthesiology. 1999;91:1239-45.

John ONW, Thomas DMT, Pak OL, Kin FT, Ning WC, Chao ST. Comparison of the effect of two different doses of 0.75% glucose-free ropivacaine for spinal anesthesia for lower limb and lower abdominal surgery. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2004;20(9):423-30.