Comparison of the Analgesic Duration of 0.5% Bupivacaine With 1:200,000 Epinephrine Versus 0.5% Ropivacaine Versus 1% Ropivacaine for Low-Volume Ultrasound-Guided Interscalene Brachial Plexus Block: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bupivacaine and ropivacaine are the preferred long-acting local anesthetics for peripheral nerve blocks as they provide prolonged analgesia in the postoperative period. No studies have directly compared the analgesic duration of these commonly used local anesthetics in the setting of low-volume ultrasound-guided interscalene block (US-ISB). This study was designed to determine which local anesthetic and concentration provides superior analgesia (duration and quality) for low-volume US-ISB. METHODS: Sixty eligible patients scheduled for arthroscopic shoulder surgery were randomized (1:1:1) to receive US-ISB (5 mL) with 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, 0.5% ropivacaine, or 1% ropivacaine. All individuals were blinded including study participants, anesthesiologists, surgeons, research personnel, and statistician. All participants received a standardized general anesthetic and multimodal analgesia. The primary outcome was duration of analgesia defined as the time from the end of injection to the time that the patients reported a significant increase in pain (>3 numeric rating scale [NRS]) at the surgical site. RESULTS: The mean duration of analgesia for 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, 0.5% ropivacaine, or 1% ropivacaine was 14.1 ± 7.4, 13.8 ± 4.5, and 15.8 ± 6.3 hours, respectively (analysis of variance [ANOVA], P = .51). There were no observed differences in analgesic duration or other secondary outcomes between the 3 groups with the exception of a difference in cumulative opioid consumption up to 20h00 on the day of surgery in favor of ropivacaine 0.5% over bupivacaine of minimal clinical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of single-injection low-volume US-ISB, we have demonstrated a similar efficacy between equal concentrations of ropivacaine and bupivacaine. In addition, increasing the concentration of ropivacaine from 0.5% to 1% did not prolong the duration of US-ISB.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".