European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine

Background: Neuraxial anaesthesia greatly expand the anaesthesiologist
armamentarium in many cases providing alternative to general anaesthesia. Spinal
anaesthesia is a popular technique for lower limb orthopaedic surgeries. Hyperbaric
bupivacaine in 8% glucose is often used. Unintended intravascular injection of
bupivacaine during regional anaesthesia may cause severe cardiovascular toxicity,
including left ventricular depression,atrioventricular heart block,life threatnig
ventricular tachycardia, fibrillation and sudden cardiac arrest which is difficult to
resuscitate However levobupivacaine has similar efficacy but better safety profile than
racemic bupivacaine.

Introduction:The subarachnoid block is a safe and time-tested technique for
administering anesthesia for cesarean section due to its rapid onset and effective
sensory and motor blockade. Bupivacaine is available as a racemic mixture of its
enantiomers, dextrobupivacaine and levobupivacaine [1] and is the most frequently used
anesthetic agent for cesarean section.
Aims: This study was performed to compare the anaesthetic efficacy and safety of two
local anaesthetic agents: Hyperbaric Bupivacaine and Isobaric Levobupivacaine, in
patients undergoing elective caesarean section.
Methods and materials: It is prospective study in 100 patients, ASA I-II, were
randomized to receive an intrathecal injection of Hyperbaric Bupivacaine or Isobaric
Levobupivacaine. Group B (n = 50) received 2 ml of Hyperbaric Bupivacaine 5 mg/ml
(10 mg). Group L (n = 50) received 2 ml of Isobaric Levobupivacaine 5 mg/ml (10 mg).
The onset and duration of sensory and motor blockade, recovery parameters,
hemodynamic changes and side effects for the two agents were compared.
Results: The time of onset of sensory block was faster in Group B (1.80 ± 0.404) when
compared with Group L (2.02 ± 0.473). In Group B the time to two segment regression
was prolonged (74.68 ± 12.916) when compared with Group L (69.08 ± 3.349) and it is
statistically significant. Duration of motor blockade was prolonged in Group B (135.52
± 4.781) when compared with Group L (100.04 ± 9.165). Hemodynamic variables were
more stable in Group L than Group B. Twenty patients in Group B had adverse effects
when compared with ten patients in Group L.
Conclusion: 0.5% Isobaric Levobupivacaine 10mg for intrathecal injection of caesarean
section produces adequate sensory and motor blockade and stable hemodynamic
parameters with minimum adverse effects than 0.5% Hyperbaric Bupivacaine 10mg.
We concluded that Isobaric Levobupivacaine is a better alternative for caesarean
section.