Comparison of ropivacaine with bupivacaine for paediatric caudal block

Abstract

In a double-blind, multicentre study 245 children aged 1-10 yr undergoing elective minor surgery as inpatients were randomly allocated to receive a single caudal extradural injection of 1 ml kg-1 of either 0.25% bupivacaine or 0.2% ropivacaine after induction of light general anaesthesia. The groups were comparable for age, weight, vital signs and duration of surgery. The onset time was similar for ropivacaine and bupivacaine (9.7 vs 10.4 min). Further analgesia was not required in 40% of children. The mean time to first analgesia in the remainder was 233 min in the bupivacaine group and 271 min in the ropivacaine group. No motor block was measurable in either group. Ropivacaine 2 mg kg-1 was as effective as bupivacaine 2.5 mg kg-1 for caudal analgesia in children.

Comparison of racemic bupivacaine, ropivacaine, and levo-bupivacaine for pediatric caudal anesthesia: Effects on postoperative analgesia and motor block☆

“…4,5 Although still not registered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for pediatric use (Ͻ 12 years of age), ropivacaine, as well as to some extent levo-bupivacaine, has been compared with racemic bupivacaine in children. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12] However, no investigation has so far compared all 3 preparations in a prospective, randomized fashion.…”

Comparison of general anaesthesia v/s caudal epidural in paediatric infra umbilical surgeries

“…Among different doses of ropivacaine, 0.25% 1 ml kg -1 showed superior postoperative analgesia [8] and significantly lower incidence of motor block [5]. In our study, Isoflurane was used as inhalation agent in Group G, Isoflurane decreases systemic vascular resistance and so reduces blood pressure and causes tachycardia.…”

Evidence-based clinical update: Which local anesthetic drug for pediatric caudal block provides optimal efficacy with the fewest side effects?

“…Seventeen such RCTs were reviewed in detail using a structured methodology. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Two review articles were also identified. 18,19 The reference lists for all of these 19 publications were reviewed to identify any further RCTs that may have been missed with the initial search strategy; no such study was found.…”