ArticleCureus2025
A Comparative Study of Spinal Anaesthesia With Hyperbaric Ropivacaine 0.75% and Hyperbaric Bupivacaine 0.5% in Hypertensive Patients Undergoing Lower Abdominal and Lower Limb Surgery.
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
backgroundRopivacaine's stereoselective and lipophilic properties contribute to its cardiovascular stability and promote the early recovery of sensory and motor function, facilitating quicker ambulation and discharge. This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic stability measured by blood pressure and heart rate changes of intrathecal 0.75% ropivacaine versus 0.5% bupivacaine in patients with controlled hypertension undergoing spinal anaesthesia.
methodsEighty patients classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status II and III with controlled hypertension were randomly assigned to either Group R (ropivacaine 0.75%, 3 mL) or Group B (bupivacaine 0.5%, 3 mL). The onset and duration of sensory and motor blockade were recorded, along with incidences of hypotension and bradycardia. Hemodynamic parameters and side effects were monitored at preset intervals during the procedure.
resultsThe incidence of hypotension was significantly higher in Group B compared to Group R (p<0.001), while bradycardia was more frequent in Group B but without statistical significance. Motor block duration was 130±30.42 minutes for ropivacaine versus 172±20.80 minutes for bupivacaine; sensory block lasted 160±30.42 minutes and 260±20.40 minutes, respectively.
conclusionHyperbaric ropivacaine 0.75% provides superior spinal anaesthesia in hypertensive patients, with faster sensory and motor recovery (p<0.001), facilitating earlier ambulation and discharge. It also offers enhanced hemodynamic stability compared to equipotent hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5%.
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.