CLINICAL TRIAL article
Front. Med.
Sec. Intensive Care Medicine and Anesthesiology
Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1571574
This article is part of the Research TopicNeuraxial Therapeutics in Pain Management: Present and FutureView all articles
ED 50 and ED 95 of hypobaric ropivacaine during unilateral spinal anesthesia in older patients undergoing hip replacement surgery
Provisionally accepted- 1Department of Anesthesiology, Affiliated Hospital of Sichuan North Medical College, Nanchong, Anhui Province, China
- 2People's Hospital of Yilong County, Yilong, Sichuan, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
The spinal block was limited to the operative side during unilateral spinal anesthesia, which has less physiological interference and fewer complications for the patient. The optimal dose of ropivacaine for unilateral spinal anesthesia is still unclear.The aim of this trial was to investigate the ED50 and ED95 of hypobaric ropivacaine during unilateral spinal anesthesia in older patients undergoing hip arthroplasty.Methods: All patients were administered hypobaric ropivacaine at a spinal anesthetic drug concentration of 0.4%. The trial was conducted using the Dixon sequential method with an initial dose of 10 mg of ropivacaine and a dose difference of 0.5 mg between two consecutive patients. If the subject's post-block non-surgical leg Bromage score is greater than 0, the next subject's dose of ropivacaine is reduced by 0.5 mg. If the subject's post-block non-surgical leg Bromage score is equal to 0, the next patient's dose of ropivacaine is increased by 0.5 mg. The trial was terminated when alternating positive-negative results were obtained for 7 pairs of patients. ED50, ED95, and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for unilateral spinal anesthesia with 0.4% hypobaric ropivacaine were calculated using probit regression analysis. Results:The ED50 and ED95 of hypobaric ropivacaine during unilateral spinal anesthesia in older patients undergoing hip arthroplasty were 11.13 mg (95% CI: 10.85-11.42 mg) and 10.30 mg (95% CI: 9.04-10.65 mg), respectively. The drug dosage was higher in the positive group than in the negative group. There was no differences in the onset of anesthesia, block plane of the affected side, the sensory and motor block time of affected side, and the incidences of low blood pressure, nausea and vomiting, chills, urinary retention between groups (P>0.05).The ED50 and ED95 of hypobaric ropivacaine during unilateral spinal anesthesia in older patients undergoing hip arthroplasty were 11.13 mg (95% CI: 10.85-11.42 mg) and 10.30 mg (95% CI: 9.04-10.65 mg), respectively. Unilateral spinal anesthesia limits the level of block to the operative side with less physiologically disruptive to the patient, more stable perioperative hemodynamics and fewer complications.
Keywords: hypobaric ropivacaine, Unilateral spinal anesthesia, Geriatrics, hip arthroplasty, dose-response relationship Hypobaric ropivacaine, Dose-response relationship
Received: 06 Feb 2025; Accepted: 14 Jul 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Lin, Xu, Xian, Zhao, Wu and Wang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Fangjun Wang, Department of Anesthesiology, Affiliated Hospital of Sichuan North Medical College, Nanchong, Anhui Province, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.