International Journal of Medical Anesthesiology
2021, Vol. 4, Issue 2, Part C
A prospective observational study to compare the effectiveness of bupivacaine versus levobupivacaine in supraclavicular brachial plexus block
Author(s): Dr. Amrita Santosh, Dr. Akansha Sharma and Dr. RL Gogna
Abstract: Background: Dexmedetomidine produces manageable hypotension and bradycardia, but the striking feature of this drug is the lack of opioid-related side effects such as respiratory depression, pruritus, nausea and vomiting. Addition of dexmedetomidine to local anaesthetic drugs during peripheral nerve blocks may also prove beneficial for surgical patients. Hence, the present study was performed to compare the effectiveness of bupivacaine and levobupivacaine for supraclavicular brachial plexus block in upper limb surgeries.
Materials and Methods: The present study was conducted in the Department of Anesthesia of MGM Medical College, Navi Mumbai. The ethical clearance for the study was approved from the ethical committee of the hospital. The study was conducted on 100 patients of ASA I & II status in the age group of 18-60 years given brachial plexus block by supraclavicular approach for various upper limb surgeries, after receiving institutional ethics committee approval.
Results: Levobupivacaine had a faster onset & longer duration of both sensory and motor blockade as compared to racemic bupivacaine. The hemodynamic profile of both drugs was similar and no adverse effect was found with either drug.
Conclusion:We conclude that in peripheral nerve blocks where large volumes of local anaesthetic is required, levobupivacaine could be a suitable choice as it is known to have less toxic potential.
Pages: 183-185 | Views: 720 | Downloads: 367
Download Full Article: Click Here
How to cite this article:
Dr. Amrita Santosh, Dr. Akansha Sharma, Dr. RL Gogna. A prospective observational study to compare the effectiveness of bupivacaine versus levobupivacaine in supraclavicular brachial plexus block. Int J Med Anesthesiology 2021;4(2):183-185. DOI: 10.33545/26643766.2021.v4.i2c.251