Less motor block with the left isomers: more questions than answers
M. Vercauteren
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.2005.00538.x
2005-01-01
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
Abstract:REGARDLESS of the discussion with respect to the anesthetic potencies of ropivacaine and levobupivacaine as compared to racemic bupivacaine, less motor block has been found for both the novel local anesthetics (1, 2). Meanwhile, clinical ED50 studies using the up-and-down sequential allocation design confirm a lesser motor block for levobupivacaine and an even further reduction with ropivacaine (3, 4). Whether this is advantageous or not depends on what the anesthetist or surgeon really want to achieve. In some clinical conditions motor impairment may be disturbing and quite unnecessary. This may delay discharge to the ward or home (e.g. day-case procedures), while it may impair patient ambulation during labor and postoperative analgesia. Efficient caudal blocks in children following surgical procedures do not require any muscle relaxation, and surely not a persisting motor block. Studies show that during combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia for labor pain there may be less motor blockwhen using ropivacaine or levobupivacaine. This difference, however, is only observed during the first 35min and does not have consequences as ambulation should never be allowed during the first 30 minutes following the initiation of labor analgesia (5, 6). Although too premature relaxation of the perineal muscles may affect the correct descent of the fetal head, obstetrical outcome does not seem to be affected by this theoretical concern. A more realistic reason for reducing motor blockade in parturients may be the preservation of expulsion force during the second stage of labor. Demonstrating this with the new local anesthetics seems difficult mostly because of the small sample size in the majority of studies. Only a metaanalysis with a sufficiently large sample size has shown a convincing difference in favor of ropivacaine (1). In postoperative studies motor impairment will depend on the level of catheter placement, dosage, and concentration of the drug. It may be extremely difficult to demonstrate differing degrees of muscle weakness in low-dose postoperative analgesic protocols. Although some postoperative studies found similar motor block, there were differences in the interval between surgery and ambulation (7, 8). However, this did not result in an improved outcome or cost-savings, since the patients stayed the same number of days in the hospital. As there is a growing trend towards shorter duration of hospitalization, we may be able to discharge patients earlier based on faster postoperative revalidation with the new local anesthetics, but then we surely would need the full cooperation of the surgeons. Less or shorter motor block as demonstrated during spinal anesthesia (9) may enhance patient satisfaction. Experiencing a complete motor block does not seem to be a pleasant feeling, and patients undergoing Cesarean section will surely appreciate a faster discharge from the postanesthetic recovery unit to see their babies. It may be questioned whether a shorter, lesser, or absent motor block following the single use of neuraxial anesthesia will not cause the surgeon to experience insufficient muscle relaxation during other procedures such as major orthopaedic and abdominal surgery. Studies demonstrating no or weak motor impairment with the use of the new local anesthetics for Cesarean section do not mention differences in surgical conditions (2, 9). Also, my personal experience during the last decade with low-dose spinals, and regardless of the local anesthetic used, does not reveal any complaints by the obstetricians. The present issue of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica contains an experimental study in an animal model on motor-block potencies by local anesthetics. The authors investigated racemic bupivacaine and its enantiomers, and an enantiomeric mixture of 25% R(þ) dextromer and 75% S(—) left isomer (10). Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2005; 49: 4—5 Copyright # Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2005 Printed in Denmark. All rights reserved ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA