Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
In Vivo
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
In Vivo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit iiar on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Ropivacaine versus Levobupivacaine for Minor Breast Surgery in Outpatients: Inversion of Postoperative Pain Relief Efficacy

ANNA ZAIRA MANFÈ, MARCO MARCHESINI, ANDREA BORTOLATO, PAOLO FELTRACCO and FRANCO LUMACHI
In Vivo November 2012, 26 (6) 1075-1077;
ANNA ZAIRA MANFÈ
1Department of Surgical, Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences (DiSCOG), University of Padua, School of Medicine, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: annazaira.manfe@unipd.it
MARCO MARCHESINI
2Department of Clinical Risk Management and Quality of Care Unit, University of Padua, School of Medicine, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ANDREA BORTOLATO
3Department of Medicine, University of Padua, School of Medicine, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
PAOLO FELTRACCO
3Department of Medicine, University of Padua, School of Medicine, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
FRANCO LUMACHI
1Department of Surgical, Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences (DiSCOG), University of Padua, School of Medicine, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The number of ambulatory surgical procedures is growing and local anesthesia represents the technique of choice for outpatients undergoing minor surgery. The aim of this study was to verify whether differences exist in postoperative pain relief using equipotent doses of two long-acting local anesthetics, ropivacaine and levobupivacaine, in patients who underwent minor breast surgery. A series of 86 consecutive women (median age=55, range=39-75 years) with small (<2 cm in size) breast masses requiring surgical excision were prospectively enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly selected to receive 7.5 mg/ml ropivacaine (group A, 42 patients) or 5 mg/ml levobupivacaine (group B, 44 patient). For post-surgical measurement of pain intensity a visual analog scale (VAS) was used. The age of the patients (56.4±9.6 vs. 56.7±9.5 years; p=0.88) and operative time (38.4±4.3 vs. 39.8±5.0 min; p=0.16), did not differ significantly between the groups (A vs. B). Transient adverse effects were observed in 5 (11.9%) and 4 (9.1%) patients (p=0.49) of groups A and B, respectively. The pain VAS four (t4) and 24 (t24) hours from the end of surgery was significantly (p<0.05) different between the groups, but an inversion of pain relief efficacy and a crossing point of the two pain-time lines at the sixth hour was observed. In conclusion, ropivacaine results in more effective pain relief at time t4, while levobupivacaine should be the drug of choice when long-term postoperative analgesia is required.

  • Local anesthetic
  • ropivacaine
  • levobupivacaine
  • pain relief
  • breast surgery
  • outpatients

The number of ambulatory surgical procedures is growing and there are also studies suggesting methodologies to estimate the potential for moving inpatients to one-day surgery, with the aim of reducing healthcare costs (1, 2). Local anesthesia represents the technique of choice for patients undergoing minor surgery and drugs with short-acting duration are usually preferred for outpatients, allowing a quick for discharge of the patients. The use of local anesthesia-alone or combined with sedation currently represents a well-accepted and safe anesthetic method for several surgical procedures, including plastic surgery and breast surgery (3).

Ropivacaine and levobupivacaine are long-acting amino-amide local anesthetics, belonging to the n-alkyl-substituted pipecholyl xylidine family (4). Both drugs have biphasic effects on skin microvessels and produce dose-dependent skin vasoconstriction, leading to a prolonged duration of effect, with limited systemic uptake (5). Ropivacaine has fewer potential cardiotoxic effects than does levobupivacaine, but its clinical efficacy does not substantially differ (4, 6). Few studies have considered the effectiveness of local anesthetics in the management of postoperative pain in breast surgery (7, 8).

The aim of this study was to verify whether differences exist in postoperative pain relief using equipotent doses of ropivacaine and levobupivacaine for patients who underwent minor breast surgery.

Patients and Methods

A series of 86 women (median age=55, range=39-75 years) with small (<2 cm in size) breast masses requiring surgical excision were prospectively enrolled in the study. Once they had given informed consent for local anesthesia, patients were randomly selected to receive 7.5 mg/ml ropivacaine (group A, 42 patients) or 5 mg/ml levobupivacaine (group B, 44 patients). Patients who received more than 20 ml of solution, corresponding to doses exceeding 150 mg and 100 mg of ropivacaine and levobupivacaine, respectively, were excluded from the study, as well as those who required supplementation of drug administration at the end of surgery. Intra- and postoperative standard monitoring [i.e. continuous electrocardiogram (ECG), arterial blood pressure and pulse oximetry measurements], was used in all patients. Infiltration of the operative area was completed from 8 to 15 min (median of 10 min) before the incision.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Postoperative pain visual analog scale (VAS) scores at 2, 4, 6 and 24 hours from the end of surgery. Means±standard deviations.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Number of patients with maximum postoperative pain visual analog scale (VAS) score at 2, 4, 6 and 24 hours from the end of surgery.

For post-surgical measurement of pain intensity, a visual analog scale (VAS) was used. The pain VAS was a single-item continuous scale, self-completed by the respondent, 10 cm in length, anchored by 2 verbal descriptors, one for each symptom extreme (9, 10). A higher score (score of 10) indicated greater pain intensity, while a score of zero meant absolutely no pain. For each patient, data at time t2, t4, t6 and t24 were recorded, corresponding to 2, 4, 6 and 24 hours from the end of the surgical procedure, respectively.

All patients were informed about the purpose of the study, the mode of pain assessment and the need to communicate the t2, t4 and t6 value of pain before discharge and to undergo an interview by telephone the morning after surgery for t24 value recording. The study was double-blinded: the anesthetist was aware of the anesthetic product only at the time of local infiltration and interviewers of patients were unaware about the local anesthetic used. Patients did not know which group they belonged too.

The reported data are expressed as the mean±standard deviation (SD). Two-tailed Student's t-test for unpaired data and the Fisher's exact probability test, to compare means and categorical variables, respectively, were used. Differences were considered significant at a p-value <0.05.

Results

The age of the patients (56.4±9.6 vs. 56.7±9.5 years; p=0.88) and operative time (38.4±4.3 vs. 39.8±5.0 min; p=0.16) did not differ significantly between the groups (A vs. B). Transient adverse effects (i.e. headache, nausea, numb tongue, neck pain) were observed in 5 (11.9%) and 4 (9.1%) patients (p=0.49) of groups A and B, respectively.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Pain visual analog scale (VAS) values (median) using ropivacaine (◆) and levobupivacaine (●). The crossing of the two pain-time lines is approximately at 6 hours from the end of surgery.

Descriptive analysis of the postoperative pain VAS scores is presented in Table I. The average t4 and t24 VAS was significantly (p<0.05) different between the groups. An inversion of pain relief efficacy was found and a crossing point of the two pain-time lines, approximately at t6, was observed (Figure 1). The maximum VAS was reported by the patients two hours from the end of surgery, while the 24-hour VAS score was zero in 14 (33.3%) and 25 (56.8%) patients (p=0.024) of groups A and B, respectively (Table II).

Discussion

Local anesthetics are used in a wide range of clinical situations, especially for outpatients and in minor surgery (11). Ropivacaine and levobupivacaine are pure left-isomers of bupivacaine which, due to their three-dimensional structure, have less central nervous system and cardiac toxicity than bupivacaine (12, 13). Several studies showed that equipotent doses of ropivacaine and levobupivacaine have similar efficacy in plexus block and walking spinal anesthesia in ambulatory patients, as well as when administered by topical application or local infiltration (6, 14, 15). Skeletal muscle toxicity is rarely observed and limited dose-dependent reversible myonecrosis represents an uncommon side-effect of intramuscular injection of all local anesthetics (16).

Pre-discharge anxiety is not infrequent in ambulatory patients and postoperative pain is usually better-tolerated by inpatients. Recently, Jones et al. (17) found that telephone calls from nurses during the immediate postoperative period may result in less symptom distress, significantly reducing anxiety and wound pain intensity. It has also been shown that patients who underwent major breast surgery and post-incisional wound or muscle infiltration with bupivacaine had low postoperative pain following modified radical mastectomy and submuscular breast augmentation, respectively (18, 19).

Ropivacaine is a well-tolerated drug, effective for both surgical anesthesia and postoperative pain relief, leading to a lower incidence of motor block than bupivacaine (20). Moreover, it seems to have a better margin of safety in respect to all other long-acting anesthetics (4, 11). Levobupivacaine was found to be more effective than ropivacaine in terms of intensity and duration of analgesia, both in mastopexis and mini-abdominoplasty, especially between 4 and 10 hours from the end of surgery (3, 21). Our study confirms these results, suggesting that ropivacaine and levobupivacaine have similar analgesic effects at times t2 and t6, but ropivacaine was more effective 4 hours after surgery and levobupivacaine at t24.

In conclusion, the comparison of postoperative pain VAS score after local infiltration of equipotent dosed of ropivacaine versus levobupivacaine shows an inversion of the efficacy of postoperative pain relief approximately six hours from the end of surgery, although levobupivacaine results in more effective long-acting pain relief.

  • Received June 4, 2012.
  • Revision received September 10, 2012.
  • Accepted September 12, 2012.
  • Copyright © 2012 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. John G. Delinassios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. White PF,
    2. White LM,
    3. Monk T,
    4. Jakobsson J,
    5. Raeder J,
    6. Mulroy MF,
    7. Bertini L,
    8. Torri G,
    9. Solca M,
    10. Pittoni G,
    11. Bettelli G
    : Review article: Perioperative care for the older outpatient undergoing ambulatory surgery. Anesth Analg 114: 1190-1215, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Gilliard N,
    2. Eggli Y,
    3. Halfon P
    : A methodology to estimate the potential to move inpatient to one day surgery. BMC Health Serv Res 6: 78, 2006.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Kakagia D,
    2. Fotiadis S,
    3. Tripsiannis G
    : Levobupivacaine versus ropivacaine infiltration analgesia for mastopexy: A comparative study of two long-acting anesthetic drugs in infiltrative anesthesia for mastopexy. Ann Plast Surg 55: 258-261, 2005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Zink W,
    2. Graf BM
    : The toxicity of local anesthetics: the place of ropivacaine and levobupivacaine. Curr Opin Anesthesiol 21: 645-650, 2008.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Newton DJ,
    2. Burke D,
    3. Khan F,
    4. McLeod GA,
    5. Belch JJ,
    6. McKenzie M,
    7. Bannister J
    : Skin blood flow changes in response to intradermal injection of bupivacaine and levobupivacaine, assessed by laser Doppler imaging. Reg Anesth Pain Med 25: 626-631, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Sanford M,
    2. Keating GM
    : Levobupivacaine: a review of its use in regional anaesthesia and pain management. Drugs 70: 761-791, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Fayman M,
    2. Beeton A,
    3. Potgieter E,
    4. Becker PJ
    : Comparative analysis of bupivacaine and ropivacaine for infiltration analgesia for bilateral breast surgery. Aesthetic Plast Surg 27: 100-103, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Hirokawa T,
    2. Kinoshita T,
    3. Nagao T,
    4. Hojo T
    : A clinical trial of curative surgery under local anesthesia for early breast cancer. Breast J 18: 195-196, 2012.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. McCormack HM,
    2. Horne DJ,
    3. Sheather S
    : Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: A critical review. Psychol Med 18: 1007-1019, 1988.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Hawker GA,
    2. Mian S,
    3. Kendzerska,
    4. French M
    : Measures of adult pain. Arthritis Care Res 63: S240-S252, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    1. Heavner JE
    : Local anesthetics. Curr Opin Anaestesiol 20: 336-342, 2007.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Buyse I,
    2. Stockman W,
    3. Columb M,
    4. Vandermeersch E,
    5. Van de Velde M
    : Effect of sufentanil on minimum local analgesic concentrations of epidural bupivacaine, ropivacaine and levobupivacaine in nullipara in early labour. Int J Obstet Anesth 16: 22-28, 2007.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Leone S,
    2. Di Cianni S,
    3. Casati A,
    4. Fanelli G
    : Pharmacology, toxicology, and clinical use of new long-acting local anesthetics, ropivacaine and levobupivacaine. Acta Biomed 79: 92-105, 2008.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Gonzalez-Suarez S,
    2. Pacheco M,
    3. Roigé J,
    4. Puig MM
    : Comparative study of ropivacaine 0.5% and levobupivacaine 0.33% in axillary brachial plexus block. Reg Anesth Pain Med 34: 414-419, 2009.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Taspinar V,
    2. Sahin A,
    3. Donmez NF,
    4. Pala Y,
    5. Selcuk A,
    6. Ozcam M,
    7. Dikmen B
    : Low-dose ropivacaine or levobupivacaine walking spinal anesthesia in ambulatory inguinal herniorrhaphy. J Anesth 25: 219-224, 2011.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Zink W,
    2. Graf MB
    . Local anesthetic myotoxicity. Reg Anest Pain Med 29: 333-340, 2004.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Jones D,
    2. Duffy ME,
    3. Flanagan J
    : Randomized clinical trial testing efficacy of a nurse-coached intervention in arthroscopy patients. Nurs Res 60: 92-99, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Lu TJ,
    2. Chen JH,
    3. Hsu HM,
    4. Wu CT,
    5. Yu JC
    : Efficiency of infiltration with bupivacaine after modified radical mastectomy. Acta Chir Belg 111: 360-363, 2011.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Jabs D,
    2. Richards BG,
    3. Richards FD
    : Quantitative effects of tumescent infiltration and bupivicaine injection in decreasing postoperative pain in submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 28: 528-533, 2008.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Simpson D,
    2. Curran MP,
    3. Oldfield V,
    4. Keating GM
    : Ropivacaine: A review of its use in regional anaesthesia and acute pain management. Drugs 65: 2675-2717, 2005.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Kakagia DD,
    2. Fotiadis S,
    3. Tripsiannis G,
    4. Tsoutsos D
    : Postoperative analgesic effect of locally infiltrated levobupivacaine in fleur-de-Lys abdominoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 31: 128-132, 2007.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

In Vivo: 26 (6)
In Vivo
Vol. 26, Issue 6
November-December 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on In Vivo.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Ropivacaine versus Levobupivacaine for Minor Breast Surgery in Outpatients: Inversion of Postoperative Pain Relief Efficacy
(Your Name) has sent you a message from In Vivo
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the In Vivo web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
3 + 5 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Ropivacaine versus Levobupivacaine for Minor Breast Surgery in Outpatients: Inversion of Postoperative Pain Relief Efficacy
ANNA ZAIRA MANFÈ, MARCO MARCHESINI, ANDREA BORTOLATO, PAOLO FELTRACCO, FRANCO LUMACHI
In Vivo Nov 2012, 26 (6) 1075-1077;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Ropivacaine versus Levobupivacaine for Minor Breast Surgery in Outpatients: Inversion of Postoperative Pain Relief Efficacy
ANNA ZAIRA MANFÈ, MARCO MARCHESINI, ANDREA BORTOLATO, PAOLO FELTRACCO, FRANCO LUMACHI
In Vivo Nov 2012, 26 (6) 1075-1077;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Evaluation of TET Family Gene Expression and 5-Hydroxymethylcytosine as Potential Epigenetic Markers in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
  • Automated Non-coplanar Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Planning for Maxillary Sinus Carcinoma
  • The Influence of the Rapid Increase in the Number of Adverse Event Reports for COVID-19 Vaccine on the Disproportionality Analysis Using JADER
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Local anesthetic
  • ropivacaine
  • levobupivacaine
  • pain relief
  • breast surgery
  • outpatients
In Vivo

© 2023 In Vivo

Powered by HighWire