ArticleAnesthesiology and pain medicine2020
Comparing the Effect of Bupivacaine and Ropivacaine in Cesarean Delivery with Spinal Anesthesia.
Article in Anesthesiology and pain medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect and safety of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to local anesthetics in erector spinae plane block: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC anesthesiology · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of the hemodynamic effects of ropivacaine versus bupivacaine for elective cesarean delivery under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Trial
- The minimum effective concentration (MEC90) of ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum block for analgesia after cesarean delivery: a dose finding study.BMC anesthesiology · 2022Trial
- Effect of Weight-Adjusted Phenylephrine, Norepinephrine, and Metaraminol for Elective Cesarean Delivery on Neonatal Acid-Base Status: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2022Trial
- Minimum effective concentration of ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided transmuscular quadratus lumborum block in total hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial.Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)Trial
- Comparative efficacy of hyperbaric bupivacaineWorld journal of methodology · 2025Article
- A randomized comparative study on successional versus premixed intrathecal administration of hyperbaric ropivacaine 0.75% and fentanyl in elective urological surgery.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparison of Ropivacaine versus Bupivacaine in Spinal-Induced Hypotension in Preeclampsia Patients: A Randomized Control Trial.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2024Article
- A Comparative Study on the Effect of Intrathecal Bupivacaine vs. Ropivacaine on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes After Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2023Article
- Anesthetic Conversion of Preexisting Labor Epidural Analgesia for Emergency Cesarean Section and Efficacy of Levobupivacaine with or Without Magnesium Sulphate: A Prospective Randomized Study.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2022Article
- Effect of single spinal anesthesia with two doses ropivacaine on urinary retention after hemorrhoidectomy in male patients.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Postoperative Pain Management: Efficacy of Caudal Tramadol in Pediatric Lower Abdominal Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Study.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2021Article
- Effectiveness of Spinal Analgesia for Labor Pain Compared with Epidural Analgesia.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2021Article
- Comparative Study of Effect of Spinal Anesthesia in Sitting and Lateral Positions on the Onset Time of Sensory Block and Hemodynamic Condition in Cesarean Section: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpinal anesthesia is the most common technique used for cesarean delivery due to some advantages compared to regional anesthesia. It is easily performed and provides a rapid onset of block. Though bupivacaine is a generally used long-acting amide type local anesthetic drug for spinal anesthesia, ropivacaine may sometimes be selected.
objectivesThis prospective, randomized, double-blinded study was aimed at comparing clinical efficacy and safety between ropivacaine and bupivacaine during cesarean section.
methodsAfter getting ethical committee approval and written informed consent, 65 women who referred to Imam Khomeini Hospital of Ahvaz, Iran in 2018 were chosen for elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. They were randomly allocated to receive either ropivacaine 1% (n = 33) or bupivacaine 0.5% (n = 32). Afterwards, the differences in the anesthetic efficacy, vital signs, and hemodynamics of participants between the two groups were recorded.
resultsDuration of sensory block was shorter in the ropivacaine group than bupivacaine group (132.5 ± 21.6 min vs. 175.8 ± 26.2 min; P < 0.001). Ropivacaine also produced a shorter duration of motor blockade than bupivacaine (124.8 ± 20.2 min vs. 168.2 ± 21.7 min; P < 0.001). There is no difference between the two groups in terms of systolic and diastolic blood pressure, but the heart rate of patients in the bupivacaine group is significantly higher than the ropivacaine group.
conclusionsThe results suggest that ropivacaine and bupivacaine are two efficient drugs in anesthesia in the cesarean section, ropivacaine is a better choice due to little influence on the hemodynamics and shorter duration of sensory block and motor block which are useful for the recovery and also safe to the patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.