The Pharmacodynamics of Ropivacaine and Bupivacaine in Combined Sciatic and Femoral Nerve Blocks for Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief The potency of ropivacaine compared with bupivacaine in regional anesthesia remains controversial. Therefore, we compared the pharmacodynamics of equal concentrations of bupivacaine and ropivacaine in combined sciatic and femoral nerve blocks for patients undergoing knee arthroplasty. Fifty patients received 40 mL of either 0.5% bupivacaine (n = 25) or 0.5% ropivacaine (n = 25) divided between the sciatic (15 mL) and the femoral (25 mL) nerves before induction of anesthesia. Loss and recovery of sensory (% of cold sensation compared to opposite side) and motor (no contraction or normal muscle force) functions were recorded in the distribution of the femoral, saphenous, common peroneal, and tibial nerves. Pain scores and morphine consumption over 48 h were also evaluated. There were no difference between bupivacaine and ropivacaine in terms of onset of sensory and motor blockade. However, resolution of sensory and motor function was faster in the ropivacaine group but only significantly so for the sciatic nerve and between 24 to 28 h for sensory resolution and 12 to 20 h for motor function. Overall, pain scores and morphine consumption were similar. In conclusion, we showed that block resolution is different between bupivacaine and ropivacaine when administered for combined sciatic and femoral nerve blocks. A new systematic method to assess sciatic and femoral nerve blockade is proposed. IMPLICATIONS: When administered for combined sciatic-femoral nerve blocks in patients undergoing knee arthroplasty, ropivacaine and bupivacaine have the same onset time for sensory and motor blockade but recovery is faster with ropivacaine. A new method of scoring sciatic and femoral nerve blockade is proposed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".