Pineda-Díaz MV, Hernández-Carrillo MA, Gerardo-De La Cruz S, Hernández-Cruz MJ, Hernández-Pérez AL Pineda-Díaz MV, Hernández-Carrillo, Gerardo-De La Cruz S, Hernández-Cruz MJ, Hernández-Pérez AL

Language: Spanish
References: 28
Page: 134-139
PDF size: 103.04 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Election of a local anesthetic depends on its clinical and pharmacological features, as well as its toxicity. Since local anesthetics have not been thoroughly evaluated in children, we compared two long-acting local anesthetics, levobupivacaine and ropivacaine. Material and methods: A randomized clinical trial was carried out in 40 children, ages 1 to 7, ASA I-II, scheduled for 90-minute surgery in the lower abdomen, perineum or lower limbs under caudal blockade. Pre-anesthetic medication was 0.4 mg/kg midazolam through the nose, 30 minutes before entering the OR. Type II monitoring. Patients were divided into two groups: Group I (n = 20) received 0.25% levobupivacaine and Group II (n = 20),0.25% ropivacaine, both as a single, 4 mg/kg and 1.6 ml/kg volume dose. Study variables: latency time, duration of action, residual motor block, vital signs, and side effects. Transanesthetic sedation with 1.5% sevorane and 100% oxygen were given. Results: Group I: latency, 10 minutes; sensory block, 4.5 hours; diffusion,T5. Group II: latency, 14 minutes; sensory block, 4 hours; diffusion, T6. Residual motor block showed significant differences. A patient in Group I suffered moderate transient hypotension. Conclusions: Caudal anesthesia with both drugs proved satisfactory; hypotension is still the most frequent complication.

REFERENCES

1. Castilla MM, Fernández MB. Anestesia locorregional en pediatría. Avances en anestesia pediátrica. Madrid, España. 2000:331-345.

2. Di Fazio CA. Metabolism of local anesthetics in the fetus, newborn and adult. Br J Anesth 1979;59:29-36.

3. Besson JM, Chaouch A. Peripheral an spinal mechanism of nociception. Phisiol Rev 1987;67:67-186.

4. Melman E, Peñuelas JA, Marrufo J. Regional anaesthesia in children. Anesth Analg 1975;54: 387-393.

5. Khalil S, Campos C, Farag AM, Vije H, Ritchey M, Chuang A. Caudal block in children. Ropivacaine compared with bupivacaine. Anesthesiology 1999;91:1279-1284.

6. Akerman B, Hellberg 1-B, Trosvik C. Primary evaluation of the local anaesthetic properties of the amino agent ropivacaine (LEA 203). Act Scand Anaesth 1998;32:571-578.

7. Dalens B. Caudal anaesthesia in: Dalens B. Ed Pediatric Regional Anesthesia CRC Press, Boca Raton 1990: 353-374.

8. Cox CR, Faccenda KA, Gilhooly C, Bannister J, Scott NB, Morrison LM. Extradural S(-)-bupivacaine: comparison with racemic RS-bupivacaine. Br J Anaesth 1998; 80: 289-293.

9. Markham A, Faulds D. Ropivacaine. A review of its pharmacology and therapeutic use in regional anaesthesia. Drugs 1996;52:429-449.

10. Vanhoutte F, Vereecke J, Verbeke N, Carmielet E. Stereo-selective effects of the enantiomers of bupivacaine on the electrophysiological properties of the guinea-pig papillary muscle. Br J Pharmacol 1991;103: 1275-1281.

11. Morrison SG, Domínguez JJ, Frascarolo P, Reiz S. Cardiotoxic effects of levobupivacaine, bupivacaine and ropivacaine and experimental study in pentobarbital anesthetized swine. Reg Anesth Pain Med 1998;23. Suppl. 50 Abstract:650.

12. Van F, Rolan PE , Brennan N, Gennery B. Differential effects of levo- and racemic bupivacaine on the EEG in volunteers. Reg Anesth& Pain Med 1998; Suppl. 48. Abstract:324.

13. Mazoit Jx, Böico, Samu K. Miocardial uptake of bupivacaine: II pharmacodynamics of bupivacaine enantiomers in the isolated perfused rabbit heart. Anesth Analg 1993;77:477-482.

14. Bardsley H, Grislwood R, Watson N, Nimmo W. The local anaesthetic activity of levobupivacaine does not differ from racemic bupivacaine (Marcain): First clinical evidence. Exp Opin Invest Drugs 1997;6:1883-1885.

15. Marrufo EJ. Peñuelas EJ, Domínguez RGH, Melman SE. Anestesia caudal en pediatría. Rev Mex Anest 1994;23:164-168.

16. Mather LE. Left-and right-handed local anaesthetics. Br J Anaesth 1991;67:239-246.

17. Sethna NF, Berde BB. Pediatric regional anaesthesia Gregory GA. Pediatric anaesthesia, Third Edition. Churchill Livingstone, Newyork. USA. 1994:281-293.

18. Eyres RK, Kidd J, Oppenheim R, Brown TC. Local anaesthetic plasma levels in children. Anaesth Intensive Care 1978;6:243-249.

19. Mazoit JX, Denson DD, Sammi K. Pharmacokinetics of bupivacaine in infants after caudal anaesthesia. Anesthesiology 1986;65:3ª.

20. Ecoffey C, Departament J, Maury M. Bupivacaine in children: pharmacokinetics following caudal anaesthesia. Anesthesiology 1985;63:447-448.

21. Da Conceicao MJ, Coelho L. Caudal anaesthesia with 0.375% ropivacaine or 0.375% bupivacaine in pediatric patients. Br J Anaesth 1998;80:507-508.

22. Gunter JB, Gregg MSN, Willkugel EP, Varughese AM, Berlin RE, Ness D, Overbeck D. Ilio-inguinal/iliohypogastric (HIH) blockwith “Chirocaine” for pain management after inguinal hernia repair in children. Reg Anesth and Pain Med 1998;23. Suppl: III,323.

23. Bardsley H, Gristwood R, Watson N, Nimmo W. The local anaesthetic activity of levobupivacaine does not differ from racemic bupivacaine (Marcain); first clinical evidence. Exp Opin Invest Drugs 1997;6:1883-1885.

24. Crews JC, Hord AH, Sudershan G, Schatman C, Denson D, Shannon C, Watkins K, Gennery B. Analgesic efficacy of epidural levobupivacaine 0.25% and morphine 0.005% versus morphine 0.005% or levobupivacaine 0.25% in patients following major abdominal surgical procedures. Reg Anesth and Pain 1998;23 Suppl: 72 Abstract:123.

25. Katz JA, Kuarr D, Bridenbaugh PO. A double blind comparison of 0.5% bupivacaine and 0.75% ropivacaine administered epidurally in humans. Reg Anaesth 1990;15:250-252.

26. Ivani G, Lampugnani E, Torre M. Comparison of ropivacaine with bupivacaine for paediatric caudal block. Br J Anaesth 1998;81: 247-248.

27. Ivani G, Mazzarello G, Lampugnani E. Ropivacaine for central blocks in children. Anesthesia 1998;53:74-76.

28. Ivani G, Mereto N, Lampugnani E. Ropivacaine in paediatric surgery. Preliminary results. Paediatric Anaesth 1998;8:127-129.