ArticleCureus2025
A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Intrathecal 0.5% Hyperbaric Levobupivacaine and 0.75% Hyperbaric Ropivacaine for Elective Caesarean Section.
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
introductionThis randomized, double-blind, controlled trial compared intrathecal 0.5% hyperbaric levobupivacaine with 0.75% hyperbaric ropivacaine in parturients undergoing elective caesarean section to evaluate sensory and motor block profiles, haemodynamic stability, neonatal outcomes, and adverse effects.
methodsSixty-six American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II parturients were randomized equally into a levobupivacaine group (Group L) and a ropivacaine group (Group R). Sensory block onset, peak level, regression, motor block onset, Bromage progression, and recovery were recorded using standardized protocols. Haemodynamic variables were measured at fixed intervals following spinal administration. Neonatal well-being was evaluated using Apgar scores at one and five minutes. Statistical analysis included the independent t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and chi-squared test, with significance set at p<0.05.
resultsLevobupivacaine produced significantly faster onset of sensory and motor blockade, earlier attainment of peak block height, and a longer duration of sensory and motor block. Time to first rescue analgesia was significantly longer in Group L. Ropivacaine demonstrated comparatively greater haemodynamic stability from 15 minutes onward and faster motor recovery. Complication rates remained low and comparable between groups. Apgar scores at both one and five minutes were significantly higher in the ropivacaine group, although all neonatal outcomes remained within clinically acceptable limits.
conclusionLevobupivacaine provides a denser and more prolonged sensory and motor block suitable for procedures requiring extended anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia. Ropivacaine offers superior haemodynamic stability, quicker motor recovery, and more favourable immediate neonatal outcomes. Both agents are safe and effective for spinal anaesthesia in caesarean section, and the choice should be guided by clinical priorities.
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.