Comparison of effectiveness of bupivacaine and levobupivacaine used in spinal anesthesia
Feyzi Çelik 1 * , Adnan Tüfek, Zeynep B. Yıldırım, Orhan Tokgöz, Haktan Karaman, Celil Alemdar, Ramazan Atiç, Taner Çiftçi, Gönül Ölmez Kavak
More Detail
1 Dicle Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Anesteziyoloji ve Reanimasyon AD, Diyarbakır, Turkey* Corresponding Author


Objectives: In this study, the effectiveness of bupivacaine and levobupivacaine was evaluated in spinal anesthesia.
Materials and methods: Applied lower extremity surgery under spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine and levobupivacaine, ASA I-III group, between 18-65 years patients were evaluated. The patients were divided into two groups according to used the local anesthetic drugs. Group B to 12.5 mg 0.5% bupivacaine + 10 mcg fentanyl (total 2.6 ml), Group L to 12.5 mg of 0.5% levobupivacaine + 10 mcg fentanyl (total 2.6 ml) was given. Patient demographics, clinical diagnoses, used local anesthetics dose and volume, duration of surgery, duration of sensory and motor block, hemodynamic parameters before and after the intervention, the first postoperative analgesic requirements, complications during and after treatment, patient satisfaction and surgical data were recorded.
Results: 260 patients were included in the study. The demographic data were similar. The local anesthetic activity, in terms of hemodynamic parameters and duration of sensory block was not different between two drugs, but the motor block regression time was found to be longer in bupivacaine group.
Conclusion: Llevobupivacaine might be a good alternative to bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia because it causes less motor block than bupivacaine.


This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

J Clin Exp Invest, 2011, Volume 2, Issue 4, 388-391

Publication date: 12 Dec 2011

Article Views: 2145

Article Downloads: 1357

Open Access References How to cite this article