Comparative evaluation of efficacy of 0.1% levobupivacaine with fentanyl and 0.1% Ropivacaine with fentanyl during Labour epidural analgesia

Authors

  • Anita Birda Senior Resident, Department Of Anaesthesiology, RNT Medical College, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India
  • Mohammed Irshad Sheikh Senior Resident, Department Of Anaesthesiology, RNT Medical College, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India
  • Sudeshana Goswami Junior Resident, Department Of Anaesthesiology, RNT Medical College, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India
  • Sagar Bijarniya Senior Resident, Department Of Orthopaedics, RNT Medical College, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India

Keywords:

Epidural analgesia,Levobupivacaine, Ropivacaine

Abstract

Background:Epidural bupivacaine is the most widely used local anaesthetic agent for labour analgesia. The present study compared 0.1% levobupivacaine with fentanyl vs 0.1% ropivacaine with fentanyl in labour epidural analgesia.Materials & Methods:Group I patients received 0.1% levobupivacaine with 2 μg/ml fentanyl and group II patients received 0.1% ropivacaine with 2 μg/ml fentanyl. Each group had 20 patients. Results: The mode of delivery found was instrument‑assisted vaginal delivery seen in 8 in group I and 6 in group II, caesarean seen 7 in group I and 8 in group II and normal vaginal delivery seen 5 in group I and 6 in group II. The mean total number of manual rescue boluses was 0.68 in group I and 1.05 in group II and first requirement of manual rescue bolus was 2.65 in group I and 3.14 in group II and demand boluses per hour was 0.36 in group I and 0.08 in group II. The difference was significant (P< 0.05).Conclusion: Levobupivacaine and ropivacaine with fentanyl were equally effective in labour epidural analgesia.

Downloads

Published

2021-05-10

How to Cite

Anita Birda, Mohammed Irshad Sheikh, Sudeshana Goswami, & Sagar Bijarniya. (2021). Comparative evaluation of efficacy of 0.1% levobupivacaine with fentanyl and 0.1% Ropivacaine with fentanyl during Labour epidural analgesia. International Journal of Health and Clinical Research, 4(9), 150–152. Retrieved from https://ijhcr.com/index.php/ijhcr/article/view/1519