The comparative effects of local anaesthetics on wound healing in rats: Bupivacaine vs Levobupivacaine

Year 2017, Volume: 34 Issue: 2, 157 - 158, 08.09.2017

Yunus Oktay Atalay

Abstract

 Dear editor,

In our study entitled “The Comparative Effects

of Local Anaesthetics on Wound Healing in Rats:

Bupivacaine vs Levobupivacaine”, which has an

experimental protocol number of 11.2008.mar, we

considered a possible vasoconstrictive mechanism

of levobupivacaine in light of previous studies that

had investigated the vasoconstrictive potency of

levobupivacaine in the sciatica nerve, the aorta,

and the basilar artery of rats, and in humans during

tonsillectomy and nasal surgery (Bouaziz et al., 2005;

Demiraran et al., 2008; Ergil et al., 2012; Shim et al.,

2012; Ergil et al., 2015). All of these studies reported

a vasoconstrictive activity of levobupivacaine.

However, another study reported a vasodilator effect of

levobupivacaine in the rat mesenteric artery and was

published after the acceptance of our study (Menezes et

al., 2016). Furthermore, this study was the only studyreporting a vasodilator effect of levobupivacaine, while  the other five studies reported the opposite effect. This

suggests that more studies are needed to investigate the

vasoactivity of levobupivacaine.

We are thankful to the author for recognizing

the false information in Table 2. We performed

the statistical analyses (Kruskal-Wallis tests) of

epidermal regeneration, granulation tissue thickness

and angiogenesis in nine rats in the levobupivacaine

group (group L). However, while we mentioned this information in the article correctly, we incorrectly

stated it in Table 2 as n=10 instead of n=9. The other

information in Table 2 that was incorrect according to

the author was the p value. With regard to epidermal and

dermal regenerations, we determined no statistically significant differences in either the bupivacaine group

(group B) or the control group (group C). However, we

found a significantly lower score in group L with a p <

0.01, Therefore, we corrected Table 2 as shown below.

Keywords

Editor

References

• Bouaziz, H., Iohom, G., Estebe, J.P., Campana, W., Myers, R., 2005. Effects of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine on rat sciatic nerve blood flow. Br. J. Anaesth. 95, 696-700. doi:10.1093/bja/aei242. Demiraran, Y., Ozturk, O., Guclu, E., Iskender, A., Ergin, M. H. Tokmak, A., 2008. Vasoconstriction and analgesic efficacy of locally infiltrated levobupivacaine for nasal surgery. Anesth. Analg. 106, 1008-1011. doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e31816174c3 Ergil, J., Akkaya, T., Gozaydin, O., Gunsoy, B., Alicura, S., Aladag, E., Gumus, H. Akin, I., 2012. Vasoconstrictive and analgesic efficacy of locally infiltrated levobupivacaine in tonsillectomy patients. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 76, 1429-1433.doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.06.016. Ergil, J., Kertmen, H., Sayın, M., Gürer, B., Yılmaz, E. R., Özkan, D., Arıkök, A. T., Kanat, M. A., Şekerci, Z., 2015. Experimental research vasoconstrictive effects of levobupivacaine on the basilar artery in the rabbit. Arch. Med. Sci. 11, 654-659. doi: 10.5114/aoms.2015.52372. Menezes, L.S., Souza, L.M., Santos, M.R., Mendonça, P.S., Moreira, I.J., Oliveira, A.A., 2016. Levobupivacaine induces vasodilatation, but not vasoconstriction, in rat mesenteric artery. Rev Odontol UNESP. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807- 2577.28415. Shim, H.S., Ok, S.H., Lee, S. H., Kwon, S.C., Sohn, J.T., 2012. Protein kinases participate in the contraction in response to levobupivacaine in the rat aorta. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 677, 131-137. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2011.12.023