Levobupivacaine vs bupivacaine as infiltration anaesthesia in inguinal herniorrhaphy.
We have compared the anaesthetic and analgesic efficacy of levobupivacaine with that of racemic bupivacaine in 66 male patients undergoing ambulatory primary inguinal herniorrhaphy. Patients were allocated randomly in a double-blind manner to local infiltration anaesthesia (0.25% w/v 50 ml) with either racemic bupivacaine (n = 33) or levobupivacaine (n = 33). Scores for intraoperative pain and satisfaction with anaesthesia were recorded, together with perception of postoperative pain and need for supplementary postoperative analgesic medications in the first 48 h after operation. Intraoperative satisfaction with the infiltration anaesthesia was similar, with median scores of 77 (levobupivacaine) and 80 (bupivacaine) (VAS; 100 mm = extremely satisfied). Time averaged postoperative pain scores (48 h) were 8 (levobupivacaine) and 10 (bupivacaine) in the supine position, 13 (levobupivacaine) and 12 (bupivacaine) while rising from the supine position to sitting, and 9 (levobupivacaine) and 13 (bupivacaine) while walking (VAS; 100 mm = worst pain imaginable) (ns). There was no difference in the use of peroral postoperative analgesics between the two groups. We conclude that racemic bupivacaine and its S-enantiomer levobupivacaine had similar efficacy when used as local infiltration anaesthesia in inguinal herniorrhaphy.[1]References
- Levobupivacaine vs bupivacaine as infiltration anaesthesia in inguinal herniorrhaphy. Bay-Nielsen, M., Klarskov, B., Bech, K., Andersen, J., Kehlet, H. British journal of anaesthesia. (1999) [Pubmed]
Annotations and hyperlinks in this abstract are from individual authors of WikiGenes or automatically generated by the WikiGenes Data Mining Engine. The abstract is from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.About WikiGenesOpen Access LicencePrivacy PolicyTerms of Useapsburg
