2019, Vol. 2, Issue 1, Part A
A prospective comparative evaluation of 1% 2-chloroprocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia in ambulatory surgical practice
Author(s): Ghanta V Nalini Kumari and JNC Hamilton
Abstract: Background: In the realm of ambulatory anaesthesia, the quest for an ideal spinal agent necessitates a compound that provides rapid onset, predictable regression, minimal adverse sequelae, and expedient functional recovery. This study compares the efficacy and safety profile of 1% 2-chloroprocaine versus 0.5% bupivacaine in spinal anaesthesia for outpatient surgical procedures.
Methods: A prospective, randomized clinical trial was conducted on 100 patients aged 18-60 years scheduled for elective infraumbilical day-case surgeries. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group C received 3 mL of 1% 2-chloroprocaine (30 mg), and Group B received 2.5 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine (12.5 mg) intrathecally. Parameters assessed included onset and duration of sensory and motor block, time to ambulation, voiding, discharge readiness, and incidence of adverse events.
Results: 2-chloroprocaine exhibited significantly faster onset of sensory and motor block (2.3 vs. 4.1 min and 3.1 vs. 5.4 min; p< 0.001) and shorter block duration (85.2 vs. 174.3 min; p< 0.001). Ambulation, micturition, and discharge were markedly earlier (135.2 vs. 248.1 min; p< 0.001). Hypotension was less frequent (4% vs. 12%; p = 0.042). Other adverse events were comparable between groups.
Conclusion: 1% 2-chloroprocaine offers a compelling pharmacological and clinical profile for spinal anaesthesia in ambulatory surgeries. It enables faster recovery, superior safety, and operational efficiency, positioning it as a prudent alternative to bupivacaine for short-duration spinal anaesthesia.
Pages: 33-37 | Views: 53 | Downloads: 20
Download Full Article: Click Here
How to cite this article:
Ghanta V Nalini Kumari, JNC Hamilton. A prospective comparative evaluation of 1% 2-chloroprocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia in ambulatory surgical practice. Int J Med Anesthesiology 2019;2(1):33-37.
