Low-dose epidural dexmedetomidine improves thoracic epidural anaesthesia for nephrectomy

The Effectiveness of Caudal Block with Low Doses of Dexmedetomidine and Pethidine in Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: Preliminary Results

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal block (CB) using dexmedetomidine and pethidine instead of local anesthesia (LA) for prostate needle biopsy and the effect of CB on urinary retention.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy (TRUS-Bx) was performed on 68 patients with a mean age of 65 ± 2.18 years. CB with a combination of dexmedetomidine and pethidine without LA was administered to the patients. The pain levels of the patients were determined using numeric rating scale (NRS) scores to evaluate the effectiveness of CB. Preoperative and postoperative postvoid residual urine volumes (PRUV) were also calculated.

RESULTS

The CB success rate was 93.15%. The NRS scores were 0.79 ± 0.19 and 0.89 ± 0.22 during probe entry and manipulation and biopsy, respectively, without any significant differences between them (p = 0.382). The mean PRUVs before and after biopsy did not differ significantly (41 ± 15.6 vs. 71.93 ± 22.3, p = 0.379). The degree of sedation, as assessed using the Ramsay scale, was 2 or 3 in all patients.

CONCLUSION

The combination of dexmedetomidine and pethidine for CB in TRUS-Bx provided quality analgesia for the patient and prevented the development of postoperative urinary retention.

Addition of dexmedetomidine to epidural morphine to improve anesthesia and analgesia for cesarean section

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the combination of epidural dexmedetomidine and morphine in providing anesthesia during cesarean surgery and analgesia for post-cesarean pain relief when added to epidural ropivacaine. A total of 80 females at term scheduled for elective cesarean delivery were randomly assigned to two groups (n=40/group): In the morphine group (group M), patients received an epidural injection of 0.75% ropivacaine (12 ml) and morphine (2 mg) for surgical anesthesia, and epidural infusion of morphine (2 mg) in 100 ml 0.2% ropivacaine at 2 ml/h for 48-h post-operative analgesia; and in the morphine combined with dexmedetomidine group (group DM), patients received an epidural injection of 0.75% ropivacaine (12 ml) and morphine (2 mg) combined with dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg) for surgical anesthesia, and epidural infusion of morphine (2 mg) and dexmedetomidine (200 µg) in 100 ml 0.2% ropivacaine at 2 ml/h for 48-h post-operative analgesia. The primary outcomes included blockade and analgesic effects, sedation and adverse reactions associated with the drugs. Neonatal outcome was also assessed by determining the Apgar score and umbilical cord blood analysis. There was no significant difference between the groups in the cephalad levels of sensory blockade at 20 min post-injection, or in muscle relaxation scores or pain intensity scores at rest or upon movement at 4, 12, 24 or 48 h post-injection (P>0.05). The maternal patients in the DM group experienced more complete motor blockade at 20 min post-injection, better sedation during surgery and following delivery, and less visceral pain caused by peritoneal traction during surgery and by uterine contraction after delivery, compared with those in group M (P<0.05). The patients in group M had a lower incidence and severity score of post-operative nausea than those in the DM group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of Apgar score or umbilical cord blood gas values (P>0.05). In conclusion, epidural dexmedetomidine reduces intra-operative and post-operative visceral pain and produces better sedation during surgery and following delivery, without any significant influence on morphine-associated side effects and post-operative analgesia, in females undergoing elective cesarean section under epidural anesthesia with morphine and ropivacaine (registration number ChiCTR1900027942; retrospectively registered with the Chinese Clinical Registry Center on December 6, 2019).

Subarachnoid and epidural dexmedetomidine for the prevention of post-anesthetic shivering: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Background

Post-anesthetic shivering incurs discomfort to patients or even exacerbates their condition. However, no ideal drug has been well established for preventing post-anesthetic shivering. Currently, subarachnoid and epidural dexmedetomidine have demonstrated to have an anti-shivering effect.

Methods

An electronic search was conducted to identify randomized placebo-controlled trials reporting shivering and then compared subarachnoid and epidural dexmedetomidine with placebo in adults undergoing selective surgery. Data assessment and pooling were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3, STATA 15.0 and GRADE-pro 3.6 software.

Results

Twenty-two studies (1389 patients) were subjected to this meta-analysis. The incidence of post-anesthetic shivering decreased from 20.10% in the placebo group to 10.30% in the dexmedetomidine group (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.39–0.59; Z=6.86, P<0.00001, I²=32%). Non-Indian, epidural-space route and cesarean subgroups indicated a better anti-shivering effect. In the subarachnoid-space route subgroup, a dosage of >5 μg showed significantly superior anti-shivering effects than that of ≤5 μg. Subarachnoid and epidural dexmedetomidine increased the incidence of bradycardia, had no impact on nausea and vomiting, shortened the onset of block and lengthened the duration of block and analgesia. However, its effect on hypotension and sedation remained uncertain. The overall risk of bias was relatively low. The level of evidence was high, and the recommendation of voting results was strong.

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine as a subarachnoid and epidural adjunct drug could decrease the incidence of post-anesthetic shivering in a dose-dependent manner. However, caution should be taken in patients with original bradycardia.

Epidural dexmedetomidine infusion for perioperative analgesia in patients undergoing abdominal cancer surgery: randomized trial

Objective

To assess the postoperative analgesic efficacy of epidural dexmedetomidine added to bupivacaine infusion for patients undergoing major abdominal cancer surgery.

Methods

Patients scheduled for major upper abdominal cancer surgery were allocated to group bupivacaine (n =32), in which patients received epidural bupivacaine infusion (6 mL/h bupivacaine 0.1%) for 48 hours postoperatively, or group bupivacaine + dexmedetomidine (n=32), in which patients received epidural dexmedetomidine added to bupivacaine infusion (6 mL/h of bupivacaine 0.1% + dexmedetomidine, 0.5 µg/mL) for 48 hours postoperatively. The cumulative morphine consumption, the time to first analgesic request, and the VAS pain score were evaluated.

Results

The cumulative morphine consumption was significantly reduced in group bupivacaine + dexmedetomidine compared with group bupivacaine: mean ± SD of 10.40±5.16 mg vs 23.23±8.37 mg with an estimated difference (95% CI) of −12.83 (−16.43, −9.24), (P<0.001). The time to the first analgesic demand was significantly delayed in group bupivacaine + dexmedetomidine compared with group bupivacaine: median (IQR) of 6 (1.75, 8.25) h vs 1 (0, 4)h, (P<0.001). The mean collapsed over time of overall VAS pain scores at rest and movement was significantly reduced in group bupivacaine + dexmedetomidine compared with group bupivacaine : mean ± SE of 1.6±0.08 vs 2.38±0.08 with an estimated difference (95% CI) of −0.8 (−1, −0.86), (P<0.001), and mean ± SE of 2.17±0.07 vs 3.25±0.07 with an estimated difference (95% CI) of −1.1 (−1.27, – 0.89), (P<0.001), respectively.

Conclusion

Epidural infusion of dexmedetomidine added to bupivacaine for patients undergoing major abdominal cancer surgery significantly reduced morphine consumption, delayed time to first analgesic supplementation, and decreased pain intensity during the first 48 hours postoperatively without harmful derangement on hemodynamics.

Investigation of single-dose thoracic paravertebral analgesia for postoperative pain control after thoracoscopic lobectomy - A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Thoracoscopic lobectomy is less painful than normal thoracotomy, but pain management is still an issue in the postoperative period. Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is considered as the gold standard for post-thoracotomy pain control, but is associated with numerous risks.

METHODS

A total of 114 patients undergoing thoracoscopic lobectomy were randomly divided into three groups. Patients in the PVB-R group received a single-dose 0.5% ropivacaine paravertebral block (PVB), combined with patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) after extubation during the 48-h postoperative period; those in the PVB-RD group received a single-dose 0.5% ropivacaine and dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg) PVB, combined with the same PCIA scheme; and those in the TEA group received intraoperative thoracic epidural anesthesia with 0.5% ropivacaine, and a single dose of epidural morphine (0.03 mg/kg) after extubation combined with the same PCIA scheme. The dose and first time of postoperative analgesia, verbal rating score (VRS), change in catecholamine, cortisol and cytokine levels, change in hemodynamic parameters, and side effects during the postoperative period were recorded.

RESULTS

Compared to the PVB-R group, the dose of postoperative analgesia and VRS were lower and the first time of postoperative analgesia were longer in the PVB-RD and TEA group. Patients in the PVB-RD group had a lower incidence of side effects compared to those in the TEA group.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-dose 0.5% ropivacaine combined with dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg) PVB provides satisfactory postoperative pain control after thoracoscopic lobectomy, and can reduce the incidence of postoperative side effects.

CONSORT-epidural dexmedetomidine improves gastrointestinal motility after laparoscopic colonic resection compared with morphine

BACKGROUND

We have previously shown that epidural dexmedetomidine, when used as an adjunct to levobupivacaine for control of postoperative pain after open colonic resection, improves recovery of gastrointestinal motility compared with morphine.

METHODS

Sixty patients undergoing laparoscopic colonic resection were enrolled and allocated randomly to treatment with dexmedetomidine (group D) or morphine (group M). Group D received an epidural loading dose of dexmedetomidine (5 mL, 0.5 μg/kg), followed by continuous epidural administration of dexmedetomidine (80 μg) in 0.125% levobupivacaine (240 mL) at a rate of 5 mL/h for 2 days. Group M received an epidural loading dose of morphine (5 mL, 0.03 mg/kg) followed by continuous epidural administration of morphine (4.5 mg) in 0.125% levobupivacaine (240 mL) at a rate of 5 mL/h for 2 days. Verbal rating score (VRS) of pain, postoperative analgesic requirements, side effects related to analgesia, and time to postoperative first flatus (FFL) and first feces (FFE) were recorded.

RESULTS

VRS and postoperative analgesic requirements were not significantly different between the treatment groups. In contrast, FFL and FFE were significant delayed in group M compared with group D (P < .05). Patients in group M also had a significantly higher incidence of nausea, vomiting, and pruritus (P < .05). No neurological deficits were observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with morphine, epidural dexmedetomidine is a better adjunct to levobupivacaine for control of postoperative pain after laparoscopic colonic resection.

Epidural Dexmedetomidine Reduces the Requirement of Propofol during Total Intravenous Anaesthesia and Improves Analgesia after Surgery in Patients undergoing Open Thoracic Surgery

The aim of this study was to assess the systemic and analgesic effects of epidural dexmedetomidine in thoracic epidural anaesthesia (TEA) combined with total intravenous anaesthesia during thoracic surgery. Seventy-one patients undergoing open thoracotomy were included in this study and randomly divided into three groups: Control group (Group C): patients received TEA with levobupivacaine alone and were intravenously infused with saline; Epidural group (Group E): patients received TEA with levobupivacaine and dexmedetomidine, and were intravenously infused with saline; Intravenous group (group V): patients received TEA with levobupivacaine alone and were intravenously infused with dexmedetomidine. The doses of propofol used in the induction and maintenance of general anaesthesia, cardiovascular response, dose and first time of postoperative analgesia and verbal rating scale were recorded. The induction and maintenance were significantly lower in the Groups E and V. Verbal rating scale and postoperative analgesic requirements were significantly lower in Group E than in Groups C and V. Patients in Group C had more severe cardiovascular responses, as compared with Groups E and V. Epidural administration of dexmedetomidine reduced the induction and maintenance of propofol, and inhibited the cardiovascular response after intubation and extubation. Moreover, epidural dexmedetomidine provided better analgesia after open thoracotomy.

Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine as an Adjuvant in Epidural Analgesia and Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Several clinical trials have examined and indicated the usefulness of epidural dexmedetomidine therapy. However, there has been no systematic analysis of the findings of these trials to date. We undertook this systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural dexmedetomidine adjunctive therapy in different surgical procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the Clinical Trials.gov database to identify randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of epidural dexmedetomidine adjunctive therapy. The article search was conducted without language or date restrictions. The date of the last search was 27 July 2016. The mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous variables, and risk ratios (RRs) were presented for dichotomous outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed using τ ², χ ² and I ² analyses.

RESULTS

Twelve randomized controlled trials were included in the final analysis. Compared with the control treatment, epidural dexmedetomidine administration prolonged the duration of analgesia (P < 0.0001), reduced the time to sensory block (P = 0.002), decreased the requirement for rescue analgesia (P < 0.00001) and achieved a significantly higher sedation score (P < 0.0001). Although dexmedetomidine adjunctive therapy did not affect mean arterial pressure (P = 0.33), systolic blood pressure (P = 0.32) or diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.28), it significantly lowered heart rate (P = 0.0009). Symptoms indicative of hypotension and bradycardia events were more common in the dexmedetomidine group, but the difference in the overall risk of hypotension and bradycardia was statistically insignificant (P > 0.05) in comparison with that reported for the control therapies. Furthermore, dexmedetomidine effectively reduced post-operative pain (P = 0.03), whilst the occurrence of other side effects, such as pruritus, dizziness, dry mouth, nausea and vomiting did not differ significantly from that reported for the control therapies, except the risk of shivering was significantly higher with control therapies (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant in epidural procedures is generally safe and well tolerated. Furthermore, dexmedetomidine acted synergistically and provided an improved sedation and analgesic profile.

Effect of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to bupivacaine in femoral nerve block for perioperative analgesia in patients undergoing total knee replacement arthroplasty: A dose-response study

Context:

Dexmedetomidine is being increasingly used in nerve blocks. However, there are only a few dose determination studies.

Aims:

To compare two doses of dexmedetomidine, in femoral nerve block, for postoperative analgesia after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Settings and Design:

A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted in the Department of Anesthesia at AIIMS, a Tertiary Care Hospital.

Materials and Methods:

Sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists I–II patients undergoing TKA under subarachnoid block were randomized to three Groups A, B, and C. Control Group A received 20 ml (0.25%) of bupivacaine in femoral nerve block. Groups B and C received 1 and 2 μg/kg dexmedetomidine along with bupivacaine for the block, respectively. Outcomes measured were analgesic efficacy measured in terms of visual analog scale (VAS) score at rest and passive motion, duration of postoperative analgesia, and postoperative morphine consumption. Adverse effects of dexmedetomidine were also studied.

Statistical Analysis Used:

All qualitative data were analyzed using Chi-square test and VAS scores using Kruskal–Wallis test. Comparison of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) morphine consumption and time to first use of PCA were done using ANOVA followed by Least Significant Difference test. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

The VAS score at rest was significantly lower in Group C compared to Groups A and B (P < 0.05). There was no difference in VAS score at motion between Groups B and C. The mean duration of analgesia was significantly longer in Group C (6.66 h) compared to Groups A (4.55 h) and B (5.70 h). Postoperative mean morphine consumption was significantly lower in Group C (22.85 mg) compared to Group A (32.15 mg) but was comparable to Group B (27.05 mg). There was no significant difference in adverse effects between the groups.

Conclusion:

The use of dexmedetomidine at 2 μg/kg dose in femoral nerve block is superior to 1 μg/kg for providing analgesia after TKA, although its role in facilitating early ambulation needs further evaluation.

Perioperative dexmedetomidine for acute pain after abdominal surgery in adults

BACKGROUND

Acute postoperative pain is still an issue in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Postoperative pain and side effects of analgesic treatment, in particular those of opioids, need to be minimized. Opioid-sparing analgesics, possibly including dexmedetomidine, seem a promising avenue by which to improve postoperative outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary aim was to determine the analgesic efficacy and opioid-sparing effect of perioperative dexmedetomidine for acute pain after abdominal surgery in adults.Secondary aims were to establish effects of dexmedetomidine on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), gastrointestinal function and mobilization, together with the side effect profile of dexmedetomidine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and reference lists of articles to May 2014. We searched the Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and Current Controlled Trials, and we contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify unpublished and ongoing studies. We applied no language restrictions. We reran the search in May 2015 and found nine studies of interest. We will deal with the studies of interest when we update the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized, controlled trials of perioperative dexmedetomidine versus placebo or other drug during abdominal surgery in adults. Trials included one of the following outcomes: amount of 'rescue' opioid, postoperative pain, time to 'rescue' analgesia, participants requiring 'rescue' analgesia, postoperative sedation, PONV, time to first passage of flatus and stool or time to first out-of-bed mobilization.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts for eligibility. We retrieved full trial reports if necessary, and we extracted relevant data from the included studies using a data collection form and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion with the third review author. We sought additional information of relevance for risk of bias assessment or extraction of data by contacting study authors or, if necessary, co-authors from present or former studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Our systematic review included seven studies with a total of 492 participants. We included 422 participants in our analysis. Thirteen studies are awaiting classification. For the comparison dexmedetomidine versus placebo (six studies, 402 participants), most studies found a reduction in 'rescue' opioid consumption in the first 24 hours after surgery, together with in general no clinically important differences in postoperative pain (visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 100 mm, where 0 = no pain and 100 = worst imaginable pain) in the first 24 hours after surgery - except for one study (80 participants) with a reduction in VAS pain at two hours after surgery in favour of dexmedetomidine, with a mean difference of -30.00 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) -38.25 to -21.75). As the result of substantial heterogeneity, pooling of data in statistical meta-analyses was not appropriate. The quality of evidence was very low for our primary outcomes because of imprecision of results and risk of bias. Regarding our secondary aims, evidence was too scant in general to allow robust conclusions, or the estimates too imprecise or of poor methodological quality. Regarding adverse effects, low quality data (one study, 80 participants) suggest that the proportion of participants with hypotension requiring intervention was slightly higher in the high-dose dexmedetomidine group with a risk ratio of 2.50 (95% CI 0.94 to 6.66), but lower doses of dexmedetomidine led to no differences compared with control. Evidence for the comparison dexmedetomidine versus fentanyl was insufficient to permit robust conclusions (one study, 20 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine, when administered perioperatively for acute pain after abdominal surgery in adults, seemed to have some opioid-sparing effect together with in general no important differences in postoperative pain when compared with placebo. However the quality of the evidence was very low as the result of imprecision, methodological limitations and substantial heterogeneity among the seven included studies. The clinical importance for patients is uncertain, in as much as the influence of dexmedetomidine on patient-important outcomes such as gastrointestinal function, mobilization and adverse effects could not be satisfactorily determined. All included studies were relatively small, and publication bias could not be ruled out. Applicability of evidence was limited to middle-aged participants who were relatively free of co-morbidity and were undergoing elective abdominal surgery. A potential bias was a considerable quantity of unobtainable data from studies with mixed surgery. To detect and investigate patient-important outcomes, larger studies with longer periods of follow-up are needed.

Epidural Co-Administration of Dexmedetomidine and Levobupivacaine Improves the Gastrointestinal Motility Function after Colonic Resection in Comparison to Co-Administration of Morphine and Levobupivacaine

Gastrointestinal motility may be impaired after intestinal surgery. Epidural morphine is effective in controlling postoperative pain, but can further reduce gastrointestinal motility. Here, we aimed to investigate the effects of epidural dexmedetomidine on gastrointestinal motility in patients undergoing colonic resection. Seventy-four patients undergoing colonic resection were enrolled in this clinical trial and allocated randomly to treatment with dexmedetomidine (D group) or morphine (M group). The D group received a loading dose epidural administration of 3 ml dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg kg(-1)) and then a continuous epidural administration of 80 μg dexmedetomidine in 150 ml levobupivacaine (0.125%) at 3 ml h(-1) for two days. The M group received a loading dose epidural administration of 3 ml morphine (0.03 mg kg(-1)) and then a continuous epidural administration of 4.5 mg morphine in 150 ml levobupivacaine at 3 ml h(-1) for two days. Verbal rating score (VRS), postoperative analgesic requirements, side effects related to analgesia, the time to postoperative first flatus (FFL) and first feces (FFE) were recorded. VRS and postoperative analgesic requirements were not significantly different between treatment groups. In contrast, the time to FFL and time to FFE were significant longer in M group in comparison to D group (P < 0.05). Moreover, patients in M group had a significantly higher incidence of nausea, vomiting, and pruritus (P < 0.05). No patients showed neurologic deficits in either group. In comparison to morphine, epidural dexmedetomidine is safe and beneficial for the recovery of gastrointestinal motility after colonic resection when used as an adjunct with levobupivacaine for postoperative pain control.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR-TRC-14004644.

The effect of epidural dexmedetomidine on oxygenation and shunt fraction in patients undergoing thoracotomy and one lung ventilation: A randomized controlled study

Background and Aims:

Role of epidural dexmedetomidine in providing analgesia is well documented, but its effect on oxygenation and shunt fraction is not well established. We studied the hypothesis that epidural dexmedetomidine may improve oxygenation and shunt fraction during one-lung ventilation (OLV).

Material and Methods:

After taking Institutional Ethics Committee approval, sixty patients undergoing thoracotomy and OLV were randomized to receive epidural ropivacaine with saline (RS group) or epidural ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine (RD group). Group RS received 7 ml of ropivacaine 0.5% with 1.5 ml normal saline (NS) bolus while RD group received 7 ml of 0.5% ropivacaine with 1 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine reconstituted in 1.5 ml NS. This was followed by infusion of 5 ml/h of 0.5% ropivacaine in RS group and 5 ml/h of 0.5% ropivacaine containing 0.2 mcg/kg of dexmedetomidine in RD group. Arterial and central venous blood gas parameters were obtained 15 minutes after intubation during two lung ventilation (TLV15), 15 and 45 min after OLV (OLV15, OLV45) and 15 minutes after reinstitution of two lung ventilation (ReTLV).

Results:

RD group had better oxygenation (254.2 ± 72.3 mmHg, 240.60 ± 59.26 mmHg) as compared to RS group (215.2 ± 64.3 mmHg, 190.7 ± 61.48 mmHg) at OLV15 (P – 0.04) and OLV45 (P – 0.004) respectively. Shunt fraction in RD group was (30.31 ± 7.89%, 33.76 ± 8.89%) and (35.14 ± 7.58%, 39.57 ± 13.03%) in RS group at OLV15 and OLV45, respectively. The increase in the shunt fraction from TLV15 was significantly greater in RS group than RD group both at OLV15 (P – 0.03) and OLV45 (P – 0.03). The sevoflurane and fentanyl requirement was lower in RD group.

Conclusion:

Epidural dexmedetomidine improves oxygenation and reduces shunt fraction during OLV, in patients undergoing thoracotomy. It also reduces intraoperative anesthetic and analgesic requirement.

Comparison of Epidural Bupivacaine, Levobupivacaine and Dexmedetomidine in Patients Undergoing Vascular Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Levobupivacaine is the s-isomer of racemic Bupivacaine. It is less cardio, neurotoxic and equally potent local anaesthetic compared to its racemate. It is known to cause less Depression of myocardial contractility. Dexmeditomidine when used via epidural route has synergistic effect with local anaesthetics. Majority of patients presenting for vascular surgery are elderly and have associated co-morbidities like diabetes, hypertension, and coronary artery disease. We intend to study safety and efficacy of epidural Levoupivacaine and Dexmedetomidine in this group of patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty adult patients undergoing lower limb vascular surgery under lumbar epidural anaesthesia were randomly allocated to three groups. All groups were preloaded with 10ml/kg of crystalloid solution. B group was scheduled to receive 15 ml of racemic Bupivacaine, L-group was scheduled to receive 15ml of Levobupivacaine and LD-group received 15ml of Levobupivacaine with 0.5 mics/kg Dexmeditomedine. Time to onset of sensory block to T-10, maximum sensory level achieved, Bromage scale, time to two segment regression, time to total regression, sedation level achieved and patients assessment of quality of anaesthesia were assessed. Haemodynamic parameters were monitored throughout study period. Adverse effects were noted and treated appropriately.

RESULTS

Baseline parameters were comparable among all the groups. Time to onset of sensory block to T-10 and maximum level of block achieved, was comparable among the groups. Time to two segment regression and time to total regression was significantly prolonged in LD group compared to other two groups. There was significant bradycardia noted in LD group which required treatment.

CONCLUSION

Levobupivacaine can be safely used in elderly high risk patients undergoing vascular surgery. Addition of dexmedetomidine prolongs the duration of anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia.

Effects of dexmedetomidine for retrobulbar anesthesia in orbital ball implants after enucleation surgery

Background:

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) can prolong the duration of local anesthetics, but the use of retrobulbar DEX has not been fully elucidated. This study was designed to determine the effects of adding DEX to lidocaine-bupivacaine for retrobulbar block in orbital ball implants after enucleation surgery.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 200 patients of both sexes aged 30–60 years of American Society of Anesthesiologists I and II, scheduled for orbital ball implants after enucleation surgery, were enrolled for the study. Patients were randomly assigned into one of the two groups: Control (n = 100) received lidocaine-bupivacaine retrobulbar block, DEX (n = 100) received lidocaine-bupivacaine plus 1 ug/kg DEX retrobulbar block. Hemodynamic data, duration of motor and sensory blocks, pain by visual analog scale, bispectral index (BIS), side effects, consumption of dezocine as a rescue analgesic, patient and surgeon satisfaction were recorded.

Results:

Duration of analgesia was prolonged in the DEX, compared with the control group ([258.35 ± 66.82 min] as [130.75 ± 29.52 min], [P < 0.05]). The median number of postoperative analgesic requests per patient during the first 24 h was decreased in the DEX group (P < 0.05). In the first 24 postoperative hours, DEX group consumed significantly less dezocine (P < 0.05). BIS values and mean arterial pressure remained lower in the DEX group, but within the safe range (P < 0.05). The side effect profile was similar between the two groups. Patients and surgeon satisfaction were higher in the DEX group (P < 0.05). Demographic characteristics were comparable in both groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion:

Retrobulbar DEX reduces consumption of rescue analgesic, prolonged the duration of retrobulbar block, improved postoperative pain, provided better sedation effects, and increased patient and surgeon satisfaction after orbital ball implants after enucleation surgery.

Single Shot Adductor Canal Block for Postoperative Analgesia of Pediatric Patellar Dislocation Surgery: A Case-Series Report

Postoperative analgesia for the knee surgery in children can be challenging. Meanwhile acute pain management in pediatric patients is still often undertreated due to inadequate pain assessment or management. We reported the ultrasound-guided single-injection adductor canal block (ACB) with 0.2% ropivacaine and dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg/kg) in addition in a series of 6 children. Patients' age was range from 7 to 15 years old with right or left habitual patellar dislocation needing an open reduction and internal refixation. Pain assessments using Numeric Rating Scale scores on the operative limb were made preoperatively and at 12, 24, 36, and 48 h postoperatively at rest. Medication consumption was calculated as well. The possible complications, such as hemodynamic changes, nausea, vomiting, and dysesthesia, were also recorded at 12, 24, 36, and 48 h postoperatively at rest. The pain scores were low, and analgesic medication consumption was minimal. Meanwhile, no adverse events were recorded in any of the subject. Single-injection ACB might be an optimal analgesia strategy for patellar dislocation surgery in pediatric patients.

Effect of mini-dose epidural dexmedetomidine in elective cesarean section using combined spinal-epidural anesthesia: a randomized double-blinded controlled study

BACKGROUND

Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia is commonly used for elective cesarean section. Our study aimed to evaluate the effect of adding dexmedetomidine to epidural bupivacaine and fentanyl in patients undergoing elective cesarean section using combined spinal-epidural anesthesia.

METHODS

Eighty healthy women at term were randomly assigned to two groups: a control group (n = 40; "Bup/Fen group") received combined spinal-epidural anesthesia with intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine 5 mg and an epidural mixture of 10 mL plain bupivacaine 0.25 % and fentanyl 50 μg, whereas the study group (n = 40; "Dex/Bup/Fen group") received 1 mL epidural dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg/kg in addition. The primary outcome measure was the difference between the groups in the supplementary fentanyl analgesic required. The quality of surgical anesthesia, incidences of hypotension and bradycardia, APGAR scores, intraoperative pain assessment, and onset of postoperative pain, sedation score, and side effects were recorded.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding block characteristics. Significantly less intraoperative and postoperative fentanyl were required by the Dex/Bup/Fen group (P = 0.015 and P = 0.0011, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding sedation score or the incidences of hypotension, nausea and vomiting, dizziness, and pruritus.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of mini-dose epidural dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg/kg as a single injection to bupivacaine fentanyl in women undergoing elective cesarean section with combined spinal-epidural anesthesia improved intraoperative conditions and the quality of postoperative analgesia.