Radiance Research AcademyInternational Journal of Current Research and Review2231-21960975-5241EnglishN2026March27Healthcare
Baricity-Dependent Effects of Bupivacaine in Spinal Anaesthesia: Implications for Clinical Practice
English0105Aleksandra SalagierskaEnglish Agata PszczolkaEnglish Joanna KozakEnglish Gabriela BajorEnglish Kacper MelkaEnglish Mikolaj SzulewskiEnglish Patrycja MachnoEnglish Patryk MatuszczakEnglish Wiktoria Jurczyk-FlorkiewiczEnglish Zofia GniadekEnglish https://doi.org/10.31782/IJCRR.2026.18601
Bupivacaine is one of the most commonly used local anaesthetics for spinal anaesthesia. Its clinical properties may vary depend ing on the baricity of the solution, which affects drug spread within the cerebrospinal fluid and the characteristics of the block. The aim of this narrative review was to compare hyperbaric and isobaric bupivacaine used for spinal anaesthesia in adult pa tients (>18 years), based on randomised clinical trials. A literature review of randomised clinical trials comparing hyperbaric and isobaric bupivacaine in adult patients was conducted. The analysis addressed sensory and motor block characteristics, haemodynamic parameters, duration of anaesthesia, and recovery time after surgery. In most studies, hyperbaric bupivacaine was associated with a faster onset of sensory and motor block, as well as more predict able spread of anaesthesia. Isobaric bupivacaine was more frequently associated with a longer block duration and prolonged postoperative analgesia. The effect of baricity on haemodynamic stability was variable; however, vasopressor requirements were comparable between groups in most studies. The baricity of bupivacaine appears to influence the clinical profile of spinal anaesthesia. Both hyperbaric and isobaric bupiv acaine can be used safely, and the choice of formulation should be individually adjusted by the physician to the clinical circum stances and the needs of each patient.
EnglishBaricity, Haemodynamic effects, Hyperbaric bupivacaine, Intrathecal anaesthesia, Isobaric bupivacaine, Local anaesthetics, Sensory block, Spinal anaesthesia.http://ijcrr.com/abstract.php?article_id=4898http://ijcrr.com/article_html.php?did=4898
1. McLeod GA. Density of spinal anaesthetic solutions of bupi vacaine, levobupivacaine, and ropivacaine with and without dextrose. Br J Anaesth. 2004; 92(4):547–51. doi:10.1093/bja/ aeh094 PubMed PMID: 14766715. https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0007091217361160
2. Uppal V, Retter S, Shanthanna H, Prabhakar C, McKeen DM. Hyperbaric Versus Isobaric Bupivacaine for Spinal Anesthesia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for Adult Patients Un dergoing Noncesarean Delivery Surgery. In: Anesthesia and Analgesia. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2017. p. 1627 37. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000002254 PubMed PMID: 28708665. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28708665/ 3. Macha?a W. Anesthesia for patients. Warsaw: PZWL; 2018. 121– 127 p.
4. Kami?ski B, Kubler A. Anesthesiology and intensive care. A textbook for medical students). 1st ed. Warsaw: PZWL; 2014. 145–148 p.
5. Weiser TG, Haynes AB, Molina G, Lipsitz SR, Esquivel MM, Uribe-Leitz T, et al. Estimate of the global volume of surgery in 2012: an assessment supporting improved health outcomes. The Lancet. 2015 Apr; 385: S11. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60806 6 PubMed PMID: 26313057. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/26313057/
6. Owczuk R. Anesthesiology and intensive care. Warsaw: PZWL; 2021. 156–165 p. 7. Brill S, Gurman GM, Fisher A. A history of neuraxial admin istration of local analgesics and opioids. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2003;20:682–9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12974588/
8. Lisowska B, Wi?niewski T, Olszewska M, Ma?dyk B, ?wiek R, S?owi?ska I, et al. Spinal anaesthesia – a comparison of two forms of bupivacaine if the same thing that is identical or just similar? Anestezjol Ratown. 2011;5:219-24.
9. Striebel HW, Hölzi M, Wessel A. Comparison of Single-Shot Spinal Anaesthesia with Continuous Spinal Anaesthesia Using the CoSPAN catheter. Report. Anästhesiologie Intensivmedi zin Notfallmedizin Schmerztherapie; 1993 Aug;28(5):292-9. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-998927. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/8373975/
10. Hocking G, Wildsmith JAW. Intrathecal drug spread. Br J Anaesth. Oxford University Press; 2004. p. 568–78. doi:10.1093/ bja/aeh204 PubMed PMID: 15220175. https://academic.oup. com/bja/article-abstract/93/4/568/304476?redirectedFrom=full text
11. Basaranoglu G. Baricity: An important issue for spinal anes thesia. Minerva Anestesiologica. Edizioni Minerva Medica; 2017. p. 345–6. doi:10.23736/S0375- 9393.17.11874-2 PubMed PMID: 28177207. https://openaccess.bezmialem.edu.tr/server/ api/core/bitstreams/696a01e3-ea02-48e9-8c53-2b9cbfd1d515/ content
12. Ranasinghe JS, Steadman J, Toyama T, Lai M. Combined spinal epidural anaesthesia is better than spinal or epidural alone for Caesarean delivery. Br J Anaesth. 2003;91(2):299–300. https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12878638/
13. Paliwal N, Kokate MV, Deshpande NA, Khan IA. Spinal an aesthesia using hypobaric drugs: a review of current evidence. Cureus. 2024;16(3):e56069. doi:10.7759/cureus.56069. https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38618403/
14. Greene NM. Distribution of Local Anesthetic Solutions within the Subarachnoid Space. Anesth Analg. 1985 Jul;64(7):715–30. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3893222/
15. Sia AT, Tan KH, Sng BL, Lim Y, Chan ES, Siddiqui FJ. Use of hyperbaric versus isobaric bupivacaine for spinal anaes thesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(5):CD009120. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009120.pub2.
16. Hassan A, Saleh A, Mohamed M, Khalil M. Intrathecal injection of hyperbaric bupivacaine versus a mixture of hyperbaric and isobaric bupivacaine in lower abdominal surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Anesth Pain Med. 2024; 14(1):e141919.https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38721440/
17. Topta? M, Uzman S, ??itemiz ?, Yanaral TU, Akkoç ?, Bican G. A comparison of the effects of hyperbaric and isobaric bupivacaine spinal anesthesia on hemodynamics and heart rate variability.
Turk J Med Sci. 2014;44(2):224–31. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/25566589/
18. Upadya M, Neeta S, Manissery JJ, Kuriakose N, Singh RR. A randomized controlled study comparing intrathecal hyper baric bupivacaine-fentanyl mixture and isobaric bupivacaine fentanyl mixture in common urological procedures. Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60(1):44–9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/arti cles/PMC4782423/
19. Besha A, Zemedkun A, Tadesse M, Hailu S, Mossie A, Shif eraw A, et al. Effects of Hyperbaric and Isobaric Bupivacaine on Hemodynamic Profiles and Block Characteristics Among Parturients Undergoing Elective Cesarean Section Under Spi nal Anesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Anesth Clin Res. 2023;2023:3545–58. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/37881235/
20. Piacherski V, Muzyka L. Comparison of the efficacy of 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine, 0.5% levobupivacaine, and 0.5% hyper baric bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia in lower limb surgeries. Sci Rep. 2023 Dec 1;13(1). doi:10.1038/s41598-023-29711 9 PubMed PMID: 36792639. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/36792639/
21. Assen S, Jemal B, Tesfaye A. Effectiveness of leg elevation to prevent spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension during cesarean delivery in the resource-limited area: open randomized con trolled trial. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2020;2020:8894257.https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32908497/
22. Aved K, Ishrat Z, Akhtar N, Ijaz B. Comparative study of in trathecal 0.5% isobaric versus 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine in same volume and dose to assess the quality of spinal anaesthesia and haemodynamic changes occurring during cesarean section. Pak J Med Health Sci. 2014;8(2):407-10.
23. Bano N, Firdous R. Effects of intrathecal hyperbaric versus isobaric bupivacaine in elective caesarean section. J Univ Med Dent Coll. 2015;6(2):1-6. https://www.jumdc.com/index.php/ jumdc/article/view/224
Radiance Research AcademyInternational Journal of Current Research and Review2231-21960975-5241EnglishN2026March30Healthcare
Development of Antimicrobial Sorghum Starch Films Reinforced with Silver Nanoparticles for Shelf Life Extension of Dairy Products
English0612Ritika GhoshEnglish Tanvi SawantEnglish S. V. RautEnglish https://doi.org/10.31782/IJCRR.2026.18602
Introduction: Environmental concerns associated with petroleum-based packaging have driven the development of biodegrad able and active alternatives. Aim/Objectives: This study investigates sorghum starch–silver nanoparticle (AgNP) nanocomposite films for antimicrobial dairy packaging. Materials and Methods: AgNPs were synthesized via citrate reduction and confirmed by UV–Visible spectroscopy (SPR: 450 500 nm). Sorghum starch was extracted and used to prepare films (3.5–6.5%) plasticized with sorbitol and incorporated with AgNPs (1–5%, w/w). Films were evaluated for thickness, swelling, and antimicrobial activity. Shelf-life studies were conducted on paneer at room temperature and 4 °C. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA. Results: Synthesized AgNPs showed strong antimicrobial activity (16–22 mm). Film thickness (0.10–0.34 mm) increased with starch concentration, indicating enhanced matrix density. Swelling behaviour varied across formulations, with optimized films showing controlled water uptake. Antimicrobial activity was concentration-dependent, with 5% AgNP films showing inhibition against Gram-negative bacteria. In paneer, coated samples exhibited up to 3.19 log CFU/g reduction in coliforms at room tem perature (pEnglishSorghum starch, Silver nanoparticles, Nanocomposite films, Active packaging, Dairy shelf life, Biodegradable packaginghttp://ijcrr.com/abstract.php?article_id=4899http://ijcrr.com/article_html.php?did=4899
1. Basiak E, Lenart A, Debeaufort F. How glycerol and water con tents affect the structural and functional properties of starch based edible films. Polymers (Basel). 2018;10(4):412. doi: 10.3390/polym10040412. [pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih](https://pub med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30966447/)
2. Cao N, Fu Y, He J. Preparation and physical properties of soy protein isolate and gelatin composite films. Food Hydrocoll. 2007; 21(7):1153-62. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2006.09.002. [sci encedirect](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0268005X06002037)
3. Dakal TC, Kumar A, Majumdar RS, Yadav V. Mechanistic ba sis of antimicrobial actions of silver nanoparticles. Front Mi crobiol. 2016;7:1831. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01831. [fron tiersin](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/ articles/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01831/full)
4. Gudikandula K, Charya Maringanti S. Synthesis of silver nano particles by chemical and biological methods and their antimi crobial properties: a review. J Nanostruct Chem. 2016;6(3):199 218. doi: 10.1007/s40097-016-0208-z. [pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih] (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27899918/)
5. Jafarzadeh S, Jafari SM. Impact of metal nanoparticles on the mechanical, barrier, optical and thermal properties of biodegrad able food packaging materials. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2021;20(5):4646-79. doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12830.
6. Kerry JP, O’Grady MN, Hogan SA. Past, current and potential utilisation of active and intelligent packaging systems for meat and muscle-based products: a review. Meat Sci. 2006;74(1):113 30. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.04.011.
7. Kumar P, Gautam S, Bansal D, Kaur R. Starch-based antibacte rial food packaging with ZnO nanoparticles. J Food Sci Technol. 2024;61(1):178-91. doi: 10.1007/s13197-023-05824-5.
8. Marsh K, Bugusu B. Food packaging—roles, materials, and environmental issues. J Food Sci. 2007; 72(3):R39-55. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00301.x.
9. Müller CM, Yamashita F, Laurindo JB. Evaluation of the ef fects of glycerol and sorbitol concentration and water activity on the water barrier properties of cassava starch films through a solubility approach. Carbohydr Polym. 2008;72(1):82-7. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2007.07.026.
10. Muñoz-Gimena PF, Oliver-Cuenca V, Peponi L, López D. A re view on reinforcements and additives in starch-based compos ites for food packaging. Polymers (Basel). 2023;15(14):2972. doi: 10.3390/polym15142972.
11. Peng J, Liu H, Chen S, Zhao Y. Silver nanoparticle-based active films for microbial control in dairy products. Int J Biol Mac romol. 2025;245:125678. doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.125678.
12. Qi Y, Du F, Jiang Z, Qiu B, Guan Q, Liu J, et al. Optimization of starch isolation from red sorghum using response surface meth odology. LWT. 2018;91:242-8. doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2017.12.050.
13. Realini CE, Marcos B. Active and intelligent packaging sys tems for a modern society. Meat Sci. 2014;98(3):404-19. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.05.002.
14. Roy S, Mishra P, Das A. Antimicrobial threshold and dispersion effects of silver nanoparticles in biopolymer matrices. J Appl Polym Sci. 2024;141(8):e5123.doi:10.1002/app.5123.
15. Salman HD. Evaluation and comparison of the antibacte rial activity of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) and silver nitrate (AgNO3) on some pathogenic bacteria. J Glob Pharm Technol. 2017;9(2):238-48.
16. Shanbhag C, Shenoy R, Shetty P, Srinivasulu M, Nayak R. For mulation and characterization of starch-based novel biodegrad able edible films for food packaging. J Food Sci Technol. 2023; 60(11):2858-67. doi: 10.1007/s13197-023-05789-7.
17. Sharma C, Manepalli PH, Thatte A, Thomas S, Kalarikkal N, Alavi S. Biodegradable starch/PVOH/laponite RD-based biona nocomposite films coated with graphene oxide: preparation and performance characterization for food packaging applications. Compos Part B Eng. 2017;123:85-95.
18. Simbine EO, Rodrigues LD, Lapa-Guimarães J, Kamimura ES, Corassin CH, Oliveira CAF. Application of silver nano particles in food packages: a review. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2019;54(5):925-34. doi: 10.1111/ijfs.14046.
19. Tarique J, Sapuan SM, Khalina A. Effect of glycerol plasticizer loading on the physical, mechanical, thermal, and barrier prop erties of arrowroot (Maranta arundinacea) starch biopolymers. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):13900. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-93322-3.
20. Thakur R, Pristijono P, Scarlett CJ, Bowyer M, Singh SP, Vuong QV. Starch-based films: major factors affecting their properties. Int J Biol Macromol. 2019;132:1079-89.doi:10.1016/j.ijbio mac.2019.04.078.
21. Vieira MGA, Almeida MN, Fernandes PMB, Coelho MAZ, Ferreira MJU. Silver nanoparticles incorporated biodegradable films for dairy packaging applications. Food Packag Shelf Life. 2022; 33:100892. doi:10.1016/j.fpsl.2022.100892
22. Wilpiszewska K, Antosik AK, Schmidt B, Janik J, Rokicka J. Hydrophilic films based on carboxymethylated derivatives of starch and cellulose. Polymers (Basel). 2020; 12(11):2447. doi: 10.3390/polym12112447