Spinal Anesthesia Using Hyperbaric Prilocaine 2% versus Hyperbaric Bupivacaine 0.5% for Day case Surgery

Etriki, Rabei Gheth Salem; Ellatif, Howaida Kamal Abd; Sayouh, Ekram Fawzy; Mohammed, Ahmed Mosallam

doi:10.21608/ejhm.2022.227712

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…36,37 This is also supported by the study by Etriki et al where the time for subjects to walk was shorter in the prilocaine group than bupivacaine (P < 0.001). 15 Thus, the recovery time for hyperbaric prilocaine 2 % is superior to hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 mg as a spinal anesthetic agent in cystoscopic procedures. The time of onset of maximum sensory level did not differ between the prilocaine and bupivacaine groups (Table 3).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The combined standard deviation can be determined from previous studies regarding the recovery time of prilocaine compared to bupivacaine 15…”

Section: Sample Size Calculationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13 Prilocaine 2% hyperbaric in a dose of 40-60 mg can provide a block to T10 dermatome for 100-130 min. 14,15 Therefore, hyperbaric prilocaine doses above 40 mg are suitable for cystoscopic surgery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A randomized controlled trial comparing the recovery time after spinal anesthesia with 2% hyperbaric prilocaine 50 mg vs. 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine 12.5 mg for cystoscopic procedures

Tantri,

Nathanael Marbun,

Heriwardito

2023

Anaesth. pain intensive care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Cystoscopy is a urologic procedure performed as a diagnostic or a therapeutic intervention, usually requiring spinal anesthesia (SA). Bupivacaine is a frequently used spinal anesthesia agent. However, the prolonged duration of its effect is a disadvantage. Prilocaine may be an alternative for spinal anesthesia in cystoscopy, which has a shorter duration of action compared to bupivacaine. We compared recovery time of 2% hyperbaric prilocaine 50 mg vs. 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine 12.5 mg for cystoscopic procedures under spinal anesthesia. Methods: This study was a randomized controlled trial involving 66 patients who underwent cystoscopy in Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo National General Hospital under SA. Subjects were randomized into two groups, i.e. prilocaine group to receive SA with hyperbaric prilocaine 2% 50 mg + fentanyl 25 µg and bupivacaine group to receive hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% 12.5 mg + fentanyl 25 µg. Following SA, the time to lift the leg 45 degrees and time to regain the ability to walking unsupported were noted in both groups and statistically compared. Hemodynamic changes in SpO2 and NIBP at fixed periods, as well as adverse effects were recorded. Results: Hemodynamic changes and adverse effects were comparable between the two groups. The mean time to lift a leg 45 degrees (93.88 min vs. 180.36 min; P < 0.001) and the time until the patient walked (144.91 min vs. 259.76 min; P < 0.002) were significantly short in the prilocaine group. The mean regression time for prilocaine and bupivacaine SA was 69.36 ± 35.85 and 131.88 ± 79.43 min respectively; the difference being significant (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Hyperbaric prilocaine 2% has a shorter recovery period when compared to hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% for spinal anesthesia and is appropriate for the length of the cystoscopy, making it a viable spinal anesthetic option. Keywords: Bupivacaine; Cystoscopy; Prilocaine; Anesthesia, Spinal; Recovery Time Citation: Tantri AR, Marbun JCRN, Heriwardito A. A randomized controlled trial comparing the recovery time after spinal anesthesia with 2% hyperbaric prilocaine 50 mg vs. 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine 12.5 mg for cystoscopic procedures. Anaesth. pain intensive care 2023;27(6):689−696; DOI: 10.35975/apic.v27i6.2145 Received: January 29, 2023; Reviewed: October 23, 2023; Accepted: October 23, 2023

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The combined standard deviation can be determined from previous studies regarding the recovery time of prilocaine compared to bupivacaine 15…”

Section: Sample Size Calculationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A randomized controlled trial comparing the recovery time after spinal anesthesia with 2% hyperbaric prilocaine 50 mg vs. 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine 12.5 mg for cystoscopic procedures

Tantri,

Nathanael Marbun,

Heriwardito

2023

Anaesth. pain intensive care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Prilocaine vs bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for urologic endoscopy: clinical trials & historical overview

Pratiwi,

Rum,

Palinrungi

et al. 2024

Vestn. anesteziol. reanimatol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. In the evolving landscape of anesthetic practices for short-duration urologic procedures, the quest for an anesthetic agent that balances efficacy with minimal side effects remains a significant clinical challenge.The objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of 2% hyperbaric prilocaine and 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia.Materials and methods. A comparative analysis was performed in terms of onset and duration of sensory and motor block, incidence of side effects (hypotension and bradycardia), and overall patient outcomes in urologic endoscopy. The research sample was divided into two groups, each consisting of 20 patients. In one case, spinal anesthesia was performed using 2% hyperbaric prilocaine (40 mg) + fentanyl 25 mcg, in the other – 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (10 mg) + fentanyl 25 mcg.Results. Prilocaine offers a faster onset of sensory and motor block and a shorter duration of sensory block compared to bupivacaine. Prilocaine also showed a quicker recovery of full motor function and had a significantly lower incidence of side effects such as hypotension and bradycardia.Conclusion. These results suggest that 2% hyperbaric prilocaine could be an alternative to 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for urologic endoscopy, especially in procedures requiring quick recovery. The promising results of prilocaine in such short-duration surgeries can also prompt a reevaluation of anesthesia protocols across various surgical interventions and lead to enhanced patient outcomes, emphasizing safety, comfort, and efficacy of surgical care.

show abstract

Spinal Anesthesia Using Hyperbaric Prilocaine 2% versus Hyperbaric Bupivacaine 0.5% for Day case Surgery

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

A randomized controlled trial comparing the recovery time after spinal anesthesia with 2% hyperbaric prilocaine 50 mg vs. 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine 12.5 mg for cystoscopic procedures

A randomized controlled trial comparing the recovery time after spinal anesthesia with 2% hyperbaric prilocaine 50 mg vs. 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine 12.5 mg for cystoscopic procedures

Prilocaine vs bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for urologic endoscopy: clinical trials & historical overview

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About