The comparison of the effect of intrathecal levobupivacaine and bupivacaine for ano-rectal surgery

• Main Authors: Gönül Ö. Kavak, Haktan Karaman, Adnan Tüfek, Zeynep B. Yıldırım, Feyzi Çelik, Hüseyin Göksu, Erdal Doğan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Modestum Publishing LTD 2012-03-01
• Series: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Investigations
• Subjects: Levobupivacaine; bupivacaine; spinal anesthesia; anorectal surgery
• Online Access: http://www.jceionline.org/upload/sayi/8/JCEI-00435.pdf

Objectives: Spinal anesthesia is widely used for anorectalsurgery. We aimed to compare the anesthetic potenciesand hemodynamic effects of levobupivacaine andbupivacaine with fentanil intrathecally administered in patientsundergoing ano-rectal surgery.Materials and methods: After Dicle University MedicalFaculty Research Hospital ethical committee approvaland written consent of the patients who underwent anorectalsurgery were obtained, sixty patients between theages of 18-65 with ASA I-II were enrolled in this study. Thepatients were randomly allocated to two groups; Group Irecived 9 mg bupivacaine 0.5% and 20 mcg fentanil (total2 ml), and Group II received 9 mg levobupivacaine 0.5%and 20 mcg fentanyl (total 2.6 ml). Spinal anesthesia wasperformed using a 26 G spinal needle via the L4-5 lumbarintervertebral space. Patients’ grade of sensory block wasassessed with pin prick test, and the grade of motor blockwas assessed with bromage scale. Hemodynamic datawere also recorded.Results: Two segment regression time and of sensoryblock onset time are similar between the groups. Motorblock onset time was longer in bupivacaine group thanlevobupivacaine group but motor block regression timewas shorter in group levobupivacaine. Hemodynamic parameterswere similar in both groups.Conclusions: Our results shows that levobupivacainewhich has similar features with bupivacaine in terms ofsensory block may be a good alternative to bupivacaine inthe operations in which development of the motor blocksis unwanted. J Clin Exp Invest 2012; 3(1): 75-80