ArticleCureus2026
Intrathecal Ropivacaine Versus Levobupivacaine for Infraumbilical Surgery: A Randomized Double-Blind Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Newer-generation amide local anesthetic drugs are relatively less cardiotoxic and neurotoxic than bupivacaine and thus can be used as safer alternatives to reduce bupivacaine-related toxicity. In the present study, we hypothesized that isobaric 0.5% levobupivacaine would be more efficacious than 0.75% ropivacaine in terms of the onset and duration of sensory and motor block, hemodynamic effects, and duration of analgesia. Methods Ninety patients who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of two groups. Patients in Group L received 3 mL of 0.5% levobupivacaine (n = 45), and those in Group R received 3 mL of 0.75% ropivacaine (n = 44). Evaluations were performed at different time intervals to assess sensory and motor block, hemodynamic parameters, analgesic effectiveness, duration of analgesia, side effects, Visual Analog Scale score, and the need for rescue analgesia. Results Patients in Group L experienced a faster onset of sensory block (5.9 minutes) and motor block (8.6 minutes) than patients in Group R, who had a sensory block onset of 8.3 minutes and a motor block onset of 11.7 minutes. The duration of sensory block was longer in Group L, with a mean duration of 268 minutes, compared with Group R, which had a mean duration of 160 minutes. The duration of motor block was also longer in Group L (230 minutes) than in Group R (136 minutes) (p < 0.0001). Conclusions Both ropivacaine and levobupivacaine provided adequate subarachnoid block for infraumbilical surgeries. However, levobupivacaine provided more effective anesthesia, with a faster onset, longer duration of sensory and motor block, and prolonged postoperative analgesia compared with ropivacaine. The prolonged sensory block with levobupivacaine resulted in less postoperative pain and reduced the need for early rescue analgesia, but at the cost of prolonged motor blockade. Both drugs are more cardiostable than bupivacaine and can be used safely as alternatives to bupivacaine.
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.