The role of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant for high-thoracic erector spinae plane block for analgesia in shoulder arthroscopy; a randomized controlled study

Dexmedetomidine with different concentrations added to local anesthetics in erector spinae plane block: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Dexmedetomidine has been used as a perineural local anesthetic (LA) adjuvant to facilitate the potency of erector spinal plane block (ESPB). This quantitative review aimed to evaluate whether perineural dexmedetomidine for ESPB can improve the effects of analgesia compared to LA alone.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the addition of dexmedetomidine to LA compared to LA alone in ESPB were included. The pain scores, duration of sensory block, the time to first analgesia requirement, postoperative morphine consumption, rescue analgesia, and dexmedetomidine-related side effects were analyzed and combined using random-effects models.

Results

A total of 823 patients from 13 RCTs were analyzed. Dexmedetomidine was used at the concentration of 0.5 μg/kg in three trials and 1 μg/kg in nine trials, and both in one trial. Both concentrations of dexmedetomidine perineurally administrated significantly reduced the rest VAS scores postoperatively at 12 h (0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine: MD = -0.86; 95% CI: -1.59 to -0.12; p = 0.02; 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine: MD = -0.49; 95% CI: -0.83 to -0.16; p = 0.004), and 24 h (0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine: MD = -0.43; 95% CI: -0.74 to -0.13; p = 0.005; 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine: MD = -0.62; 95% CI: -0.84 to -0.41; p < 0.00001). Both concentrations of dexmedetomidine added in LAs improved the dynamic VAS scores postoperatively at 12 h (0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine: MD = -0.55; 95% CI: -0.95 to -0.15; p = 0.007; 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine: MD = -0.66; 95% CI: -1.05 to -0.28; p = 0.0006) and 24 h (0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine: MD = -0.52; 95% CI: -0.94 to -0.10; p = 0.01; 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine: MD = -0.46; 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.16; p = 0.002). Furthermore, perineural dexmedetomidine prolonged the duration of the sensory block and the time to first analgesia requirement, reduced postoperative morphine consumption, and lowered the incidence of rescue analgesia and chronic pain.

Conclusion

The meta-analysis showed that using perineural dexmedetomidine at either 0.5 μg/kg or 1 μg/kg doses in ESPB can effectively and safely enhance pain relief.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO (CRD42023424532: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/).

Effects of epidurally administered dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone on postoperative pain, analgesic requirements, inflammation, and oxidative stress in thoracic surgery

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone as adjuvants to preoperative epidural administration of local anesthetic (ropivacaine) in thoracic surgery on the postoperative level of pain, use of analgesics, inflammation, and oxidative stress. The study enrolled 42 patients who underwent elective thoracic surgery in a one-year period at the University Hospital Dubrava (Zagreb, Croatia). Based on a computer-generated randomization list the patients were assigned to the dexmedetomidine (n = 18) or dexamethasone (n = 24) group. Postoperatively, patients of dexmedetomidine group reported lower pain (VAS value 1 h post surgery, 3.4 ± 2.7 vs. 5.4 ± 1.8, dexmedetomidine vs. dexamethasone, p < 0.01) and had lower anal-gesic requirements in comparison with dexamethasone group. Thus, dexmedetomidine in comparison with dexamethasone was more efficient in lowering pain and analgesia requirements 24 h after the surgery. On the contrary, dexamethasone had better anti-inflammatory properties (CRP level 24 h post surgery, 131.9 ± 90.7 vs. 26.0 ± 55.2 mg L-1, dexmedetomidine vs. dexamethasone, p < 0.01). Both dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone exhibited antioxidant effects, however, their antioxidant properties should be further explored. The results of this study improve current knowledge of pain control in thoracic surgery.