Mepivacaine Versus Bupivacaine for Spinal Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Random Controlled Trials
Advances in Therapy, ISSN: 1865-8652, Vol: 39, Issue: 5, Page: 2151-2164
2022
- 8Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures8
- Readers8
Article Description
Introduction: Bupivacaine is a more widely used anesthetic than mepivacaine. However, the long-acting effects of bupivacaine often lead to slow and unpredictable return. As an intermediate-acting local anesthetic, mepivacaine can enable earlier ambulation and thus has other benefits. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the anesthetic effects of mepivacaine and bupivacaine. Methods: On August 12, 2021, a search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Effect estimates with 95% CI were combined using a random effects model. We performed sensitivity analyses to explore sources of heterogeneity and stability of results. Results: Of the 406 papers screened, 14 population-based randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 1007 patients. Overall, compared to bupivacaine, mepivacaine was associated with higher numbers of motor block 3 (OR, 4.05; 95% CI 1.92–8.57), shorter length of stay (SMD, − 0.77; 95% CI − 1.52 to − 0.03), faster recovery from motor block (SMD, − 1.45; 95% CI − 2.39 to − 0.51), and shorter time to return to voiding (SMD, − 1.24; 95% CI − 1.83 to − 0.64). Mepivacaine was associated with a higher incidence of transient neurologic symptoms (TNS) and transient nerve root irritation (TRI) (OR, 9.18; 95% CI 2.42–34.88). There was no statistical difference between the two anesthetics in terms of pain index on the postoperative day (SMD, 0.20; 95% CI − 0.06 to 0.46) and incidence of urinary retention (OR, 0.98; 95% CI 0.47–2.03). Conclusions: Mepivacaine may have advantages over bupivacaine in terms of achieving motor block 3, shorter length of stay, earlier recovery from motor block, and earlier time to return to voiding, but it may have a higher incidence of TNS or TRI than bupivacaine. Therefore, mepivacaine may be used before bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85126373209&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-022-02088-3; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35294737; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12325-022-02088-3; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-022-02088-3; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-022-02088-3
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know