ArticleCureus2025
Lower Limb Orthopedic Anesthesia: A Randomized Trial Comparing Ropivacaine and Bupivacaine for Sensory-Motor Block and Hemodynamic Stability.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Spinal anesthesia is the preferred anesthetic technique for lower limb orthopedic surgeries due to its efficacy, rapid onset, and favorable safety profile. While bupivacaine has long been considered the gold standard, its cardiovascular side effects have prompted interest in ropivacaine, a newer agent with a better safety margin. This study compares the sensory-motor block characteristics and hemodynamic stability of hyperbaric ropivacaine (0.75%) and bupivacaine (0.5%) in spinal anesthesia. Methods A prospective, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted on 100 patients undergoing elective lower limb orthopedic surgeries. Participants were equally assigned to receive either 3 mL of 0.75% hyperbaric ropivacaine or 3 mL of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine intrathecally. Primary outcomes included onset time, duration, and intensity of sensory and motor block. Secondary measures included hemodynamic parameters (blood pressure, heart rate), time to first rescue analgesia, and incidence of adverse effects. Data were analyzed using t-tests, chi-square tests, and effect size estimation. Results Bupivacaine exhibited faster sensory (2.96 vs. 3.60 min, p<0.001) and motor block onset (4.68 vs. 5.29 min, p<0.001), and longer motor block duration (152.5 vs. 126.3 min, p<0.001) compared to ropivacaine. However, ropivacaine offered better hemodynamic stability, with significantly fewer hypotensive and bradycardic episodes (p<0.05). The duration of sensory block was slightly shorter with ropivacaine (188.2 vs. 190.0 min; p=0.019), though block intensity was higher (80.1% vs. 74.0%; p=0.012). Time to first analgesic request was significantly longer with bupivacaine (205.1 vs. 152.7 min; p<0.001). Discussion The results confirm that bupivacaine is superior in block onset and duration but at the cost of increased cardiovascular side effects. Ropivacaine, while slightly slower in onset and shorter in motor duration, maintains comparable analgesia with significantly enhanced hemodynamic stability, making it preferable in high-risk cardiovascular patients or for short-duration surgeries requiring early mobilization. Conclusion This study highlights that while bupivacaine is suited for long-duration surgeries, ropivacaine is preferable for shorter procedures or patients with cardiovascular risks, offering enhanced hemodynamic stability and safety. Further research is needed to explore dose-response relationships and the long-term outcomes of these anesthetics.
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.