ArticleCureus2020
Intrathecal Use of Isobaric Levobupivacaine 0.5% Versus Isobaric Ropivacaine 0.75% for Lower Abdominal and Lower Limb Surgeries.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intrathecal Ropivacaine Versus Levobupivacaine for Infraumbilical Surgery: A Randomized Double-Blind Trial.Cureus · 2026Article
- Article
- The potencies and neurotoxicity of intrathecal levobupivacaine in a rat spinal model: Effects of concentration.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background This study was undertaken to compare and evaluate the efficacy of 3-ml 0.5% isobaric levobupivacaine versus 3-ml 0.75% isobaric ropivacaine in patients undergoing elective lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries. Methods We allocated 60 patients into two groups (n=30 each) to receive either a spinal block of 3-ml 0.5% isobaric levobupivacaine (group L) or 3-ml 0.75% isobaric ropivacaine (group R). Haemodynamic parameters were measured intraoperatively till the end of surgery and postoperatively for two hours. The onset and duration of sensory block and motor block were recorded. Adverse events were also recorded. The student's unpaired t-test was used for comparing the continuous variables. Results The mean age in group L was 37.83 ±16.51 years and the mean age in group R was 38.50 ±12.97 years. The mean onset of sensory block in group L (6.97 ±1.82 mins) was significantly faster than in group R (8.47 ±2.55 mins), p<0.05. Similarly, so was the mean onset of motor block in group L (10.27 ±1.92 mins) versus group R (12.93 ±2.55 mins), p<0.05. The mean duration of sensory block in group L (147.63 ±27.53 mins) was significantly longer than in group R (97.40 ±12.38 mins), p<0.05, as was the mean duration of motor block in group L (207.33 ±22.27 mins) versus group R (146.60 ±21.22 mins), p<0.05. In group L, 13.3% of patients had complications, with hypotension being the most common (6.7%); in group R, 40% had complications, of which bradycardia was the most common (13.3%). Conclusion There was an earlier onset of sensory and motor block and prolonged duration of sensory and motor block with intrathecal administration of 3-ml 0.5% isobaric levobupivacaine as compared to 3-ml 0.75% isobaric ropivacaine. Haemodynamic parameters were more stable with levobupivacaine than ropivacaine. Adverse effects were more common with ropivacaine.
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.