Use of hyperbaric versus isobaric bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Volumn 2013, Issue 5, 2013, Pages

  Sia, Alex T ^a   Tan, Kelvin H ^a   Sng, Ban Leong ^a   Lim, Yvonne ^a   Chan, Edwin S Y ^b   Siddiqui, Fahad Javaid ^c  

^a KK WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL   (Singapore)

^b DUKE NUS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Singapore)

^c Australasian Cochrane Centre   (Singapore)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALGESIC AGENT; BUPIVACAINE; EPHEDRINE; HYPERBARIC BUPIVACAINE; ISOBARIC BUPIVACAINE; MORPHINE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; LOCAL ANESTHETIC AGENT;

ANESTHESIOLOGICAL PROCEDURE; CESAREAN SECTION; CONVERSION; DERMATOMAL BLOCK THORACIC; DERMATOMAL SENSORY BLOCK; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; GENERAL ANESTHESIA; HEADACHE; HUMAN; NAUSEA AND VOMITING; NERVE BLOCK; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REGIONAL ANESTHESIA; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; RISK OF BIAS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SPINAL ANESTHESIA; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TIME; TREATMENT OUTCOME; CEREBROSPINAL FLUID; CHEMISTRY; FEMALE; INTRASPINAL DRUG ADMINISTRATION; META ANALYSIS; OBSTETRIC ANESTHESIA; PREGNANCY; PROCEDURES; METHODOLOGY;

ANESTHESIA, GENERAL; ANESTHESIA, OBSTETRICAL; ANESTHESIA, SPINAL; ANESTHETICS, LOCAL; BUPIVACAINE; CEREBROSPINAL FLUID; CESAREAN SECTION; EPHEDRINE; FEMALE; HUMANS; INJECTIONS, SPINAL; PREGNANCY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84891707990     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1469493X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005143.pub2     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. das Neves JF, Monteiro GA, de Almeida JR, Brun A, Cazarin N, Sant'Anna RS, et al.Spinal anesthesia for cesarean section: comparative study between isobaric and hyperbaric bupivacaine with morphine [Raquianestesia para cesariana: estudo comparativo entre bupivacaina isobarica e hiperbarica associadas a morfina.]. Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia 2003;53(5):573-8. [PUBMED: 19475310].
2. Richardson MG, Collins HV, Wissler RN. Intrathecal hypobaric versus hyperbaric bupivacaine with morphine for cesarean section. Anesthesia and Analgesia 1998;87(2):336-40. [PUBMED: 9706927].
3. Russell IF, Holmqvist EL. Subarachnoid analgesia for caesarean section. A double-blind comparison of plain and hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine. British Journal of Anaesthesia 1987;59(3):347-53. [PUBMED: 3548793].
4. Sarvela PJ, Halonen PM, Korttila KT. Comparison of 9 mg of intrathecal plain and hyperbaric bupivacaine both with fentanyl for cesarean delivery. Anesthesia and Analgesia 1999;89(5):1257-62. [PUBMED: 10553846].
5. Vercauteren MP, Coppejans HC, Hoffmann VL, Saldien V, Adriaensen HA. Small-dose hyperbaric versus plain bupivacaine during spinal anesthesia for cesarean section. Anesthesia and Analgesia 1998;86(5):989-93. [PUBMED: 9585282].
6. Vichitvejpaisal P, Svastdi-Xuto O, Udompunturux S. A comparative study of isobaric and hyperbaric solution of bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia in caesarean section. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand (Chotmaihet Thangphaet) 1992;75(5):278-82. [PUBMED: 1460407].
7. Connolly C, McLeod G, Wildsmith JA. A comparison of glucose 8mg/Ml or glucose 80mg/ml with bupivacaine 5mg/ml for spinal anesthesia for Cesarian section. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine 1998;23(3):51.
8. Connolly C, Wildsmith JA, McLeod G. A comparison of glucose 8 mg/ml or glucose 80 mg/ml with bupivacaine 5 mg/ml for spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 1999;8:210-1.
9. Connolly C, McLeod GA, Wildsmith JA. Spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section with bupivacaine 5 mg ml(-1) in glucose 8 or 80 mg ml(-1). British Journal of Anaesthesia 2001;86(6):805-7. [PUBMED: 11573587].
10. Echevarria M, Caba F, Bernal L, Pallares JA, Rodriguez R. Effect of the local anesthetic on visceral pain in cesarean sections done under intradural anesthesia [Influencia del anestesico local en el dolor visceral de cesareas bajo anestesia intradural.]. Revista Espanola de Anestesiologia y Reanimacion 1996;43(1):2-6. [PUBMED: 8851828].
11. King HK, Wood L, Khan AK. Spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section: isobaric vs hyperbaric solution. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine 1997;22(2):14.
12. King HK, Wood L, Steffens Z, Johnson C. Spinal anesthesia for cesarean section: isobaric versus hyperbaric solution. Acta Anaesthesiologica Sinica 1999;37(2):61-4. [PUBMED: 10410404].
13. Lew E, Yeo SW, Thomas E. Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia using epidural volume extension leads to faster motor recovery after elective cesarean delivery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2004;98(3):810-4. [PUBMED: 14980942].
14. Sodhi R, Fernando R, Hallworth S, Sarang K, Patel N. Does density influence the spread of intrathecal bupivacaine in the prolonged sitting position before elective cesarean section?. Anesthesiology 2002;96 Supp1:69.
15. Sudarshan G, Kokri MS, Kumar CM. Evaluation of sequential administration of plain and hyperbaric bupivacaince for spinal anesthesia for lower segment Caeserean section. American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine Annual Meeeting Abstracts http://journals.lww.com/rapm/Citation/1994/19021/Evaluation_of_sequential_administration_of_plain.23.aspx. 1994:P 23.
16. Jabalameli M, Mazegh N, Gholami S. The effects of hyperbaric or isobaric bupivacaine on bispectral index in spinal anesthesia for cesarean section. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences 2012;17:176-81.
17. Loubert C, Hallworth S, Fernando R, Columb M, Patel N, Sarang K, et al.Does the baricity of bupivacaine influence intrathecal spread in the prolonged sitting position before elective cesarean delivery? A prospective randomized controlled study. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2011;113:811-7.
18. Narejo AS, Memon GN, Wagan F, Wagan MA, Khawaja RA. A study to assess the quality of spinal anesthesia and to observe hemodynamic changes occuring during cesarean section with spinal anesthesia, comparing 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine and 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine in same volume and dose. Medical Channel 2012;18:58-62.
19. Saracoglu A, Saracoglu KT, Eti Z. Comparative study of fentanyl and morphine in addition to hyperbaric or isobaric bupivacaine in combined spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. Archives of Medical Science 2011;7:694-9.
20. Yurtlu BS, Hanci V, Okyay RD, Bostankolu SE, Erdogan Kayhan G, Hakimoglu S, et al.Effects on hypotension incidence: Hyperbaric, isobaric, and combinations of bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia in cesarean section. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences 2012;42:307-13.
21. Chanrachakul B, Herabutya Y, Udomsubpayakul U. Epidemic of cesarean section at the general, private and university hospitals in Thailand. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 2000;2:357-61. [PUBMED: 11147723].
22. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics In Medicine 2002;21:1539-58.
23. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated September 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
24. Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gülmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P, et al.Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08. Lancet 2010;375(9713):490-9.
25. Odlind V, Haglund B, Pakkanen M, Otterblad Olausson P. Deliveries, mothers and newborn infants in Sweden, 1973-2000. Trends in obstetrics as reported to the Swedish Medical Birth Register. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2003;82:516-28. [MEDLINE: 12780422].
26. The Nordic Cochrane Centre. The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. 5.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
27. Russell IF. Intrathecal bupivacaine 0.5% for caesarean section. Anesthesia 1982;37(3):346-7. [MEDLINE: 7091613].
28. Tsen LC, Pitner R, Camann WR. General anesthesia for cesarean section at a tertiary care hospital 1990-1995: indications and implications. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 1998;7:147-52. [MEDLINE: 15321206].