A Comparative Study on the Effects of 0.5% Epidural Levobupivacaine and 0.75% Ropivacaine in Lower Limb Surgery

Rajeev  Kumar; Akhil  Piyush; Shalini  Sharma; Sudama  Prasad

doi:10.51168/sjhrafrica.v5i9.1393

Authors

Rajeev Kumar Senior Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India
Akhil Piyush Senior Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India
Shalini Sharma Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India
Sudama Prasad Professor & HOD, Department of Anaesthesiology, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51168/sjhrafrica.v5i9.1393

Keywords:

Levobupivacaine, Ropivacaine, Lower limb surgery, Epidural anesthesia, Onset time, Block duration

Abstract

Background: Levobupivacaine and ropivacaine are widely used local anesthetics in lower limb surgeries. Both agents offer favorable safety profiles, but their comparative effects on anesthesia quality and duration remain a subject of interest. This study compared the clinical efficacy, onset, duration, and safety of 0.5% levobupivacaine and 0.75% ropivacaine in lower limb surgeries.

Methods: Eighty patients were randomly randomised into two groups: Group R (ropivacaine 0.75%, 20 ml) and Group L (levobupivacaine 0.5%, 20 ml). Onset times, duration of sensory and motor block, anaesthetic quality, and hemodynamic parameters were recorded and analyzed using SPSS version 20.0.

Results: Levobupivacaine had a faster onset of sensory block (8.3 ± 1.5 minutes vs. 10.2 ± 1.7 minutes; p < 0.001) and motor block (12.5 ± 1.8 minutes vs. 14.7 ± 2.0 minutes; p < 0.001). Sensory block duration was longer in Group L (240.5 ± 20.3 minutes) compared to Group R (215.7 ± 18.6 minutes; p < 0.001). Motor block duration was also longer in Group L (205.4 ± 17.2 minutes vs. 185.9 ± 16.5 minutes; p < 0.001). Both groups had similar safety profiles, with no significant differences in hemodynamic stability or adverse effects.

Conclusion: Levobupivacaine demonstrated faster onset, longer duration, and better anesthesia quality than ropivacaine, making it more suitable for longer surgeries. Both agents were well tolerated, with comparable safety profiles.

Recommendations: Further research is recommended to explore the long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of these anesthetic agents in different surgical settings.