Main Article Content
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects on hemodynamic stability,block level,patient’s comfort,nausea and vomiting using 0.5% and 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine in lower segment caesarean section.
METHODS: A total of 100 patients, having American Society of Anesthesiology status I/II, aged 20 to 40 years, scheduled for elective
lower segment caesarean section were selected through consecutive
non-probability sampling technique. Patients were randomly allocated by lottery method to either the group I (n=50) to whom 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine was given or group II (n=50) to which 0.75% hyperbaricbupivacaine was administered. Hemodynamic parameters were noted 03 minutes apart for first 30 minutes. Block level was confirmed to cold using ethyl chloride spray. Pain, uneasiness, nausea and vomiting were also noted. Student t-test and Chi square tests were applied where appropriate.
Both groups were comparable in terms of age, weight, height
and duration of surgery. There was no significant difference between
heart rate, fall in blood pressure in both the groups. Block level at T4
level was observed in 78% & 50% in group I & II respectively and at T6 level in 22% & 50% in group I & II respectively (p<0.05). Uneasiness/discomfort (48%) and nausea/vomiting (34%) were observed in group II only (p<0.05)
CONCLUSION: Hemodynamic parameters in both groups showed no
significant difference. However, patients administered with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine for lower segment caesarean section showed more appropriate levels of block, less incidence of nausea and vomiting, and more patient comfort as compared to 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine.
KEY WORDS: Bupivacaine (MeSH), Anesthesia; Spinal (MeSH), Cesarean Section (MeSH), Hemodynamic parameters (Non-MeSH), Level of block (Non-MeSH)
Work published in KMUJ is licensed under a
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
2) Jabalamelli M,Hazegh N,Gholami S.The effects of hyperbaric or isobaric bupivacaine on bispectral index in spinal anesthesia for cesarean section.J Res Med Sci 2012;17(2):176-81
3) Gupta R,Bogra J,Singh P K,Saxena S,Chandra G,Kushwaha J K.Comparative study of intrathecal hyperbaric versus isobaric ropivacaine:A randomized control trial.Saudi J Anesthesia 2013 Jul-Sep;7(3):249-53
4)Dambrosio A,Spadaro S,Mirabella L,Natale C,Cotoia A,Decararis A,Menga R,Salatto P,Malvasi A,Brizzi A,Tinelli A,Dambrosio M,Cinnella G.The anesthestic and recovery profile of two concentrations(0.25% and 0.5%)of intrathecal isobaric levo bupivacaine for combined spinal and epidural anesthesia in patients undergoing modified Stark method caesarean delivery:a double blinded randomized trial.European review for medical and pharmacological sciences 2013;(17):3229-36
5) Sia AT,Tan KH,Sng BL,Lim Y,Chan ES,Siddiqui FJ.Use of hyperbaric versus isobaric bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia for caesarean section.Cochrane Database Syst Rev,2013 May 31;5:1-42
6) Solakovic N.Level of sensory block and baricity of bupivacaine 0.5% in spinal anesthesia.Med ARH,2010;64(3):158-60
7) Loubert C,Hallworth S,Fernando R,Columb M,Patel N,Sarang K,Sodhi V,Does the baricity of bupivacaine influence intrathecal spread in the prolonged sitting position before elective cesarean delivery?A prospective Randomized Controlled Study.Anesthesia Analgesia 2011 Oct;113(4):811-17
8) Punshi GD,Afshan G,Spinal Anaesthesia for Caesarean section:plain vs hyperbaric bupivacaine.J Pak Med Assoc 2012 Aug-Aug;62(8):807-11
9)Chung CJ,Bae SH,Chae KY,Chin YJ.Spinal anesthesia with 0.75% hyperbaric Bupivacaine for ceasarean section:Effect of volume.Br J Anesth 1996;77:145-9
10) Chan V,Peng P,Herbert C,Stephen L,Jeremy W,Suzsana K.Determining minimum effective anesthetic concentration of Hyperbaric Bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia.Anesth Analg 2000;90:1135-40
11)Martin R,Frigon C,Chretien A,et al.Onset of spinal block is more rapid with isobaric than hyperbaric bupivacaine.Can J Anesth 2000;47:43-46
12) Bano F,Shabbar S,Zafar S,Rafiq N,Iqbal MN,Haider S,Aftab S,Sultan ST.Intrathecal fentanyl as adjunct to hyperbaric bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for cesarean section.J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2006;16:87-90
13)Parlow JL,Phyllis M,Philip C,Jemifer R,Brian M.Addition of opioid alter the density and spread of intrathecal local anesthetic?A vitro study.Can J Anesth 1999;46:66-70
14) Huabayashi Y,Shimizu R,Saitoh K,Fakuda H,Igarashi T,Furuse M.Anatomical configuration of the spinal column in the supine position:Comparison of adolescent and adult volunteer.Br J Anesth 1996;76:508-10
15)Vercuateren M,Hoffman V,Copperjan HL,et al.Hydroxyethyl starch compared with modified gelatin as volume preload before spinal anesthesia for Cesarean section.Br J Anesth 1996;76:731-33
16) Russell IF,Holmqvist EL.Subarachnoid analgesia for Cesarean section.Double blind comparison of plain and hyperbaric bupivcaine 0.5%.Br J Anesth 1989;59:347-53
17) Jackson R,Reid JA,Thorburn T.Volume preloading is not essential to prevent spinal induced hypotension of Cesarean section.Br J Anesth 1995;75:262-65
18) Arndt JO,Bomer W,Krauth J,Marquardt B.Incidence of time course of cardiovascular side effects during spinal anesthesia after prophylactic administration of intravenous fluid or vasoconstrictor.Anesth Analg 1998;87:347-54