Comparison of the effect of low-dose ropivacaine and lidocaine in intravenous regional anaesthesia: A randomised, double-blind clinical study

Clinical Drug Investigation

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 209-214

  Bigat, Zekiye ^a   Karsli, Bilge ^a,b   Boztug, Neval ^a   Cete, Nihan ^a   Ertok, Ertugrul ^a  

^a Dept of Anesth and Reanimation ^*  (Turkey)

^b AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

JETOKAIN; LIDOCAINE; PARACETAMOL; ROPIVACAINE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING; CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; DRUG EFFICACY; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HAND SURGERY; HEART RATE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HYGROMA; INTRAVENOUS REGIONAL ANESTHESIA; LOW DRUG DOSE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; OPERATION DURATION; PAIN ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PULSE OXIMETRY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SENSORIMOTOR FUNCTION; SIDE EFFECT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

EID: 16244389285     PISSN: 11732563     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00044011-200525030-00007     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Graf BM, Abraham I, Eberbach N, et al. Differences in cardiotoxicity of bupivacaine and ropivacaine are the result of physicochemical and stereoselective properties. Anesthesiology 2002; 96 (6): 1427-34
2. Chang DH, Ladd LA, Copeland S, et al. Direct cardiac effects of bupivacaine, levobupivacaine and ropivacaine in the sheep. Br J Pharmacol 2001; 132 (3): 649-58
3. McCartney CJ, Murphy DB, Iagounova A, et al. Intravenous ropivacaine bolus is a reliable marker of intravascular injection in premedicated healthy volunteers. Can J Anaesth 2003: 50 (8): 795-800
4. Stewart J, Kellett N, Castro D. The central nervous system and cardiovascular effects of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine in healthy volunteers. Anesth Analg 2003; 97 (2): 412-6
5. Ohmura S, Kawada M, Ohta T, et al. Systemic toxicity and resuscitation in bupivacaine. levobupivacaine or ropivacaine infused rats. Anesth Analg 2001; 93 (3): 743-8
6. Stienstra R. The place of ropivacaine in anesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg 2003; 54(2): 141-8
7. Casati A, Santosola R, Cerchierini E, et al. Ropivacaine. Minerva Anestesiol 2001; 67 (9): 15-9
8. Kalman S, Svensson H, Lisander B, et al. Quantitative sensory changes in humans after intravenous regional block with mepivacaine. Reg Anesth Pain Med 1999; 24 (3): 236-41
9. Pitkanen MT, Xu M, Haasio J, et al. Comparison of 0.5% articaine and 0.5% prilocaine in intravenous regional anesthesia of the arm: a cross-over study in volunteers. Reg Anesth Pain Med 1999; 24 (2): 131-5
10. Prieto-Alvarez P, Calas-Guerra A, Fuentes-Bellido J, et al. Comparison of mepivacaine and lidocaine for intravenous regional anaesthesia: pharmacokinetic study and clinical correlation. Br J Anaesth 2002; 88 (4): 516-9
11. Turan A, Karamanlioglu B, Memis D, et al. Intravenous regional anesthesia using prilocaine and neostigmine. Anesth Analg 2002; 95 (5): 1419-22
12. Atanassoff PG, Aouad R, Hartmannsgruber MW, et al. Levobupivacaine 0.125% and lidocaine 0.5% for intravenous regional anesthesia in volunteers. Anesthesiology 2002: 97 (2): 325-8
13. Chan VW, Weisbrod MJ, Kaszas Z, et al. Comparison of ropivacaine and lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia in volunteers: a preliminary study on anesthetic efficacy and blood level. Anesthesiology 1999: 90 (6): 1602-8
14. Hartmannsgruber MW, Silverman DG, Halaszynski TM, et al. Comparison of ropivacaine 0.2% and lidocaine 0.5% for intravenous regional anesthesia in volunteers. Anesth Analg 1999; 89(3): 727-31
15. Peng PW, Coleman MM, Mccartney CJ, et al. Comparison of anesthetic effect between 0.375% ropivacaine versus 0.5% lidocaine in forearm intravenous regional anesthesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2002; 27 (6): 595-9
16. Atanassoff PG, Hartmannsgruber MW. Central nervous system side effects are less important after IV anesthesia with ropivacaine 0.2% compared to lidocaine 0.5% in volunteers. Can J Anaesth 2002; 49 (2): 169-72