ArticleCureus2025
Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery: Does Ropivacaine Offer Hemodynamic Advantages Over Bupivacaine?
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe selection of a local anesthetic for spinal anesthesia (SA) during cesarean sections (CSs) is a crucial clinical decision, with bupivacaine being the most frequently used agent. Nonetheless, ropivacaine has emerged as a viable alternative because of its advantageous safety profile. This study sought to compare the efficacy and safety of hyperbaric ropivacaine (0.75%) and hyperbaric bupivacaine (0.5%) in elective CS.
methodsA prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial was conducted involving 98 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) II parturients who underwent elective CS. Participants were assigned to receive either 2.6 mL of 0.75% hyperbaric ropivacaine (Group R, n = 49) or 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (Group B, n = 49). The primary outcome measured was the duration of motor blockade, assessed using the modified Bromage scale. Secondary outcomes included the onset of sensory block, hemodynamic stability, adverse effects, and neonatal appearance, pulse, grimace, activity, and respiration
resultsBoth study groups displayed similar demographic and surgical profiles. Bupivacaine exhibited a more rapid sensory onset at T10 (p = 0.004) and extended the duration until the first request for analgesia (p < 0.001). Conversely, ropivacaine was associated with significantly fewer hemodynamic fluctuations, notably a reduction in hypotension (p = 0.007). The duration of motor blockade and neonatal outcomes were comparable between the groups.
conclusionBupivacaine demonstrated a marginally faster onset of sensory effects and prolonged duration of analgesia, whereas ropivacaine exhibited superior hemodynamic stability, characterized by a reduced incidence of hypotensive episodes. Both anesthetic agents were equally effective in achieving motor blockade and providing optimal surgical conditions. These findings suggest that ropivacaine is a viable alternative to SA for CSs, particularly in patients with hemodynamic vulnerabilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.