International Journal of Medical and All Body Health Research  |  e-ISSN: 2582-8940  |  Double-Blind Peer Review  |  Open Access  |  CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Current Issues
     2026:7/4

International Journal of Medical and All Body Health Research

e-ISSN: 2582-8940 | Open Access

Comparative Study of Hyperbaric Ropivacaine 0.75% and Hyperbaric Bupivacaine 0.5% for Spinal Anaesthesia

Dr. Rohit Jain, Dr. Sharad Goel, Dr. Shailja Sharma, Dr. Ankit Jain

Postgradutae Resident Anaesthesia, Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Pilkhuwa, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, India; Professor Anaesthesia, Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Pilkhuwa, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, India; Hod and Professor Anaesthesia, Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Pilkhuwa, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, India; Md Anaesthesia, Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Pilkhuwa, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, India

Article Information

Volume / Issue6 / 3 (July-September 2025)
Pages99-105
AccessOpen Access

Publication Timeline

  • Received23 June 2025
  • Accepted25 July 2025
  • Published

Full Text (PDF)

Open Access - Free to Download

Download Full Article (PDF) JATS XML

Abstract

Background: Local anesthetic selection for spinal anesthesia significantly influences block characteristics, safety profile, and patient outcomes. Ropivacaine, with its reduced cardiotoxicity and neurotoxicity compared to bupivacaine, has emerged as an attractive alternative for neuraxial anesthesia.
Objective: To compare the efficacy, safety, and block characteristics of hyperbaric ropivacaine 0.75% versus hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia for lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries.
Methods: This prospective, randomized, double-blind study included 120 patients (ASA I-II) scheduled for elective surgery under spinal anesthesia. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: Group R (n=60) received 15 mg of 0.75% hyperbaric ropivacaine, and Group B (n=60) received 15 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Primary outcomes included onset and duration of sensory and motor blockade. Secondary outcomes encompassed hemodynamic parameters, recovery characteristics, and adverse effects.
Results: Sensory block onset was faster in Group B (4.2±1.1 min) compared to Group R (5.8±1.4 min, p<0.001). However, Group R demonstrated shorter duration of motor blockade (168±32 min vs 198±38 min, p<0.001) with earlier mobilization. Duration of sensory blockade was comparable between groups (Group R: 185±28 min vs Group B: 192±31 min, p=0.174). Hemodynamic stability was superior in Group R with lower incidence of hypotension (18.3% vs 35%, p<0.05). Patient satisfaction scores were higher in Group R (8.4±1.2 vs 7.6±1.4, p<0.01).
Conclusion: Both hyperbaric ropivacaine 0.75% and hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% provide effective spinal anesthesia. Ropivacaine offers advantages of better hemodynamic stability, shorter motor blockade duration, and higher patient satisfaction, making it a suitable alternative to bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia.

Keywords

Spinal AnesthesiaRopivacaineBupivacaineHyperbaric SolutionLocal AnestheticsRegional AnesthesiaNeuraxial Blockade

References

  1. Rodgers A, Walker N, Schug S, McKee A, Kehlet H, van Zundert A, et al. Reduction of postoperative mortality and morbidity with epidural or spinal anaesthesia: results from overview of randomised trials. BMJ. 2000;321(7275):1493-7. International Journal of Medical and All Body Health Research www.allmedicaljournal.com [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  2. Casati A, Putzu M. Bupivacaine, levobupivacaine and ropivacaine: are they clinically different? Best Practice and Research Clinical Anaesthesiology. 2005;19(2):247-68. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  3. Covino BG. Pharmacology of local anaesthetic agents. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 1986;58(7):701-16. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  4. Greene NM. Distribution of local anesthetic solutions within the subarachnoid space. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 1985;64(7):715-30. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  5. Albright GA. Cardiac arrest following regional anesthesia with etidocaine or bupivacaine. Anesthesiology. 1979;51(4):285-7. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  6. McClure JH. Ropivacaine. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 1996;76(2):300-7. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  7. Markham A, Faulds D. Ropivacaine. A review of its pharmacology and therapeutic use in regional anaesthesia. Drugs. 1996;52(3):429-49. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  8. Scott DB, Lee A, Fagan D, Bowler GM, Bloomfield P, Lundh R. Acute toxicity of ropivacaine compared with that of bupivacaine. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 1989;69(5):563-9. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  9. Knudsen K, Beckman Suurküla M, Bloomfield S, Sjövall J, Edvardsson N. Central nervous and cardiovascular effects of i.v. infusions of ropivacaine, bupivacaine and placebo in volunteers. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 1997;78(5):507-14. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  10. Groban L, Deal DD, Vernon JC, James RL, Butterworth J. Cardiac resuscitation after incremental overdosage with lidocaine, bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, and ropivacaine in anesthetized dogs. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2001;92(1):37-43. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  11. Zaric D, Nydahl PA, Philipson L, Samuelsson L, Heierson A, Axelsson K. The effect of continuous lumbar epidural infusion of ropivacaine (0.1%, 0.2%, and 0.3%) and 0.25% bupivacaine on sensory and motor block in volunteers: a double-blind study. Regional Anesthesia. 1996;21(1):14-25. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  12. Gautier P, De Kock M, Huberty L, Demir T, Izydorczic M, Vanderick B. Comparison of the effects of intrathecal ropivacaine, levobupivacaine, and bupivacaine for Caesarean section. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2003; [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  13. Whiteside JB, Burke D, Wildsmith JA. Spinal anaesthesia with ropivacaine 5 mg/ml in glucose 50 mg/ml or fructose 50 mg/ml. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2001;86(2):241-4. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  14. Hocking G, Wildsmith JA. Intrathecal drug spread. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2004;93(4):568-78. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  15. Kallio H, Snäll EV, Tuomas CA, Rosenberg PH. Comparison of hyperbaric and plain ropivacaine 15 mg in spinal anaesthesia for lower limb surgery. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2004;93(5):664-9. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  16. Van Kleef JW, Veering BT, Burm AG. 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. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 1994;78(6):1125-30. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  17. Malinovsky JM, Charles F, Kick O, Lepage JY, Malinge M, Cozian A, et al. Intrathecal anesthesia: ropivacaine versus bupivacaine. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2000;91(6):1457-60. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  18. Wildsmith JA, Brown DT, Paul D, Johnson S. Structure-activity relationships in differential nerve block at high and low frequency stimulation. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 1989;63(4):444-52. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  19. Luck JF, Fettes PD, Wildsmith JA. 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. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  20. Fattorini F, Ricci Z, Rocco A, Romano R, Pascarella MA, Pinto G. Levobupivacaine versus racemic bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia in orthopaedic major surgery. Minerva Anestesiologica. 2006;72(11):637-44. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  21. Lee YY, Ngan Kee WD, Muchhal K, Chan CK. Randomized double blind comparison of ropivacaine and bupivacaine for caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2005;94(5):680-5. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  22. Borghi B, Stagni F, Bugamelli S, Paini A, Gaspari G, Casati A, et al. Unilateral spinal block for outpatient knee arthroscopy: a dose-finding study. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. 2003;15(5):351-6. [Google Scholar][Crossref]

How to Cite

Jain, R., Goel, S., Sharma, S., & Jain, A. (2025). Comparative Study of Hyperbaric Ropivacaine 0.75% and Hyperbaric Bupivacaine 0.5% for Spinal Anaesthesia. International Journal of Medical and All Body Health Research, 6(3), 99-105. https://doi.org/10.54660/IJMBHR.2025.6.3.99-105

Jain, Rohit, et al. "Comparative Study of Hyperbaric Ropivacaine 0.75% and Hyperbaric Bupivacaine 0.5% for Spinal Anaesthesia." International Journal of Medical and All Body Health Research, vol. 6, no. 3, 2025, pp. 99-105. https://doi.org/10.54660/IJMBHR.2025.6.3.99-105.

Jain, R., Goel, S., Sharma, S. and Jain, A. (2025) 'Comparative Study of Hyperbaric Ropivacaine 0.75% and Hyperbaric Bupivacaine 0.5% for Spinal Anaesthesia', International Journal of Medical and All Body Health Research, 6(3), pp. 99-105. doi: 10.54660/IJMBHR.2025.6.3.99-105.

Jain R, Goel S, Sharma S, Jain A. Comparative Study of Hyperbaric Ropivacaine 0.75% and Hyperbaric Bupivacaine 0.5% for Spinal Anaesthesia. International Journal of Medical and All Body Health Research. 2025;6(3):99-105. doi:10.54660/IJMBHR.2025.6.3.99-105

Similar Articles

Share

Find this Article on

Google Scholar Semantic Scholar OpenAlex Scilit Crossref ResearchGate BASE

A newly published article may take a few days to appear on these services.