Safety and sedative effect of intranasal dexmedetomidine in mandibular third molar surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Efficacy of Intranasal Atomized Dexmedetomidine for Sedation in Surgical Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars: A Prospective Study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of dexmedetomidine atomized intranasally for sedation during surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective randomized trial was conducted on 25 anxious patients between the ages of 18 and 40 who had impacted the lower third molars. An intranasal atomization device was used to give the medication 30 minutes prior to the surgical procedure. The Ramsay sedation score and Observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score were used to assess intranasal sedation.

RESULTS

The results of our study state that the sedative effect began to take effect between 30 and 45 minutes later and was nearly back to baseline by 105 minutes after the administration of intranasal dexmedetomidine.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal delivery of 1.5mg/kg atomized dexmedetomidine for patients undergoing surgical removal of impacted mandibular third teeth is safe, feasible, and clinically efficient in daycare settings based on the sedation scores, and secondary variables which were assessed.

Nonpharmacological Complementary Interventions for the Management of Pain after Third Molar Surgery: An Umbrella Review of Current Meta-Analyses

Objectives

To provide a nonbiased, complete assessment of what the evidence from meta-analyses informs us about complementary and nonpharmacological treatment options for the management of pain after third molar surgery, as well as highlight any discordancy, gaps, or lack of evidence among meta-analyses.

Methods

The quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed using the ROBIS tool. Corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated for pairs of similar meta-analyses to identify the amount of overlap. Reviews that were the most recent, comprehensive, and had adequate quality were considered for analyses when reviews showed a high overlap. In cases with a low amount of overlap among meta-analyses, all eligible studies were included. Also, citation matrices were constructed to address overlap. A network meta-analytical approach was adopted to rank different interventions.

Results

Ten meta-analyses were included for quantitative synthesis. The quantitative analysis revealed that platelet-rich fibrin and its derivatives as well as ozone therapy reduce early and late pain better than the other complementary interventions compared to control (no complementary intervention).

Conclusions

Despite the shortcomings of included meta-analyses, consolidated evidence suggests that platelet-rich-fibrin and its derivatives as well as ozone therapy outperform the other nonpharmacological complementary interventions in reducing early and late postsurgical pain following third molar extraction. However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to an unclear risk of bias and lack of firm evidence in the included meta-analyses. Moreover, there is a need for a standard protocol for the application of nonpharmacological complementary interventions.

Effect of Dexmedetomidine Added to Lidocaine Cartridge on the Level of Patient Sedation, Cooperation, and Patient and Surgeon Satisfaction during Mandibular Third-Molar Extraction Surgery: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial

Background. Various methods have been introduced for anxiety control during third-molar extraction surgery. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is known to have analgesic, anxiolytic, and sympatholytic properties with minimal adverse effects. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the local injection of the combination of DEX and Lidocaine on patients’ anxiety and the surgeon’s satisfaction during third-molar extraction surgery. Methods. A total number of 26 healthy volunteers with symmetrical bilateral impacted mandibular third-molar teeth indicated for surgical removal were included in this double-blind randomized controlled trial. A single experienced surgeon performed two surgical extraction procedures within at least four-week time intervals using anesthetic cartridges containing “DEX + LIDO” or “LIDO alone” used randomly on each side for each patient. The Visual Analog Scale and the SDFQ index were used to evaluate patients’ anxiety and surgeon satisfaction during the procedure. Results. SDFQ reports showed that patients in the “DEX” group were 1.5 times more relaxed than those in the “LIDO alone” group. As a result, the level of sedation was considered statistically significant between the two groups (Wilcoxon test, $P$ value <0.019). Wilcoxon test results also showed significant differences between the two groups regarding patients’ overall cooperation in terms of interfering movement and verbal presentation of discomfort ( $P$ value <0.05); however, this difference was not considered significant regarding nonverbal signs of discomfort ( $P$ value >0.05). Moreover, both the surgeon and the patients reported a significantly higher satisfaction rate in the DEX group (paired T-test, df = 25, $P$ value <0.05). Conclusions. It was inferred from the outcomes of the present study that the application of DEX added to the LIDO local anesthesia cartridge could significantly benefit anxious patients with previous unpleasant dental treatment experiences. Trial Registration. This trial is registered with the clinical trial registration number: IRCT20200406046966N.

Injection of Lidocaine Alone versus Lidocaine plus Dexmedetomidine in Impacted Third Molar Extraction Surgery, a Double-Blind Randomized Control Trial for Postoperative Pain Evaluation

Objectives

Administration of medications such as dexmedetomidine as a topical anesthetic has been suggested in the pain control in dentistry. This double-blind randomized control trial study evaluated postoperative pain and associated factors following impacted third molar extraction surgery. Lidocaine alone was taken as the control and lidocaine plus dexmedetomidine as the intervention.

Materials and Methods

Forty patients undergoing mandibular third molar extraction entered the study and were randomly allocated to the control and interventional groups. 0.15 ml of dexmedetomidine was added to each lidocaine cartridge and the drug concentration was adjusted to 15 μg for the intervention group while only lidocaine was used in the control group. A visual analog scale was used to measure and record pain levels at the end of the surgery and 6, 12, and 24 hours after the surgery and number of painkillers taken by the patients after the surgery was also recorded.

Results

Pain scores of the intervention group decreased significantly during the surgery and also 6, 12, and 24 hours after the surgery compared to the control group. The pain score was correlated significantly with our intervention during the surgery and also 6 and 12 hours after that (all P value < 0.05). There was a nonsignificant reduction in the number of painkillers taken by the patients at 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery (all P value > 0.05).

Conclusion

In patients undergoing molar surgery, administration of a combination of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine is beneficial for the pain control. Clinical Relevance. Compared to the injection of lidocaine alone, combination of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine can be used for a better pain control in molar surgeries.

Comparative study between intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal ketamine as a premedication for anxiolysis and sedation before pediatric general anesthesia

Background

This study compared dexmedetomidine versus ketamine as regard sedation and anxiolysis produced by giving them through intranasal route to pediatric patients undergoing adenotonsillectomy. This study was double-blinded randomized comparative prospective interventional clinical study done in Ain Shams University Hospital (El Demerdash Hospital) on 76 pediatric patients who underwent adenotonsillectomy, and they were randomly allocated equally into two main groups; group D received 2 μg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine and group K received 5 μg/Kg intranasal ketamine 30 min before the operation, and the aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus intranasal ketamine for anxiolysis and sedation to alleviate stress, agitation, and anxiety in children before general anesthesia and for promoting good level of sedation for them.

Results

Results of this study as regards sedation level that was assessed by modified Ramsay sedation score showed that there was statistically significant difference between both groups at 10, 20, and 30 min from intranasal application of the drug (P value < 0.05), the median (IQR) of sedation score at 10, 20, and 30 min preoperative in group D was (2 (2 – 2)), (3 (3 – 4)), (4 (4 – 5)) compared to (2 (2 – 3)), (3 (2 – 3)), (4 (3 – 4)) in group K respectively which revealed that there was better and effective sedation in group D more than in group K, this difference was statistically significant but clinically insignificant as both drugs produced an acceptable level of sedation and decreased the level of anxiety in children.

Conclusion

Both drugs produce effective and favorable sedation level with superiority to dexmedetomidine in sedation scores and time of onset of sedation, and also there was little decrease in heart rate and mean arterial pressure which is favorable during such surgeries; also, there was accepted level of cannulation and parental separation scores, and the parents were highly satisfied with the procedure and were grateful for us due to alleviating stress and anxiety from them and from their children.

Intranasal dexmedetomidine combined with local anesthesia for conscious sedation during breast lumpectomy: A prospective randomized trial

Breast lumpectomy is usually performed under general or local anesthesia. To the best of our knowledge, whether conscious sedation with intranasal dexmedetomidine and local anesthesia is an effective anesthetic technique has not been studied. Thus, the present study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of conscious sedation with intranasal dexmedetomidine combined with local anesthesia in breast lumpectomy, and to identify its optimal dose. A prospective randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, single-center study was designed, and patients undergoing breast lumpectomies were recruited based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All patients were randomly allocated to four groups: i) Local anesthesia with 0.9% intranasal saline (placebo); local anesthesia with ii) 1 µg.kg⁻¹; iii) 1.5 µg.kg⁻¹; or iv) 2 µg.kg⁻¹ intranasal dexmedetomidine. The sedation status, pain relief, vital signs, adverse events, and satisfaction of patient and surgeon were recorded. Patients in the three dexmedetomidine groups were significantly more sedated and experienced less pain compared with the placebo group 45 min after intranasal dexmedetomidine administration and during 30 min in the post-anesthesia care unit. Patients in the 1.5 µg.kg⁻¹ group were more sedated compared with the 1 µg.kg⁻¹ group (without reaching statistical significance), whereas the 1.5 µg.kg⁻¹ group exhibited a similar level of sedation 45 min after intranasal dexmedetomidine administration compared with the 2 µg.kg⁻¹ group. In addition, patients in the 1 and 1.5 µg.kg⁻¹ group experienced no adverse hemodynamic effects. Patient and surgeon satisfaction were greater in the 1.5 µg.kg⁻¹ group compared with the 1 and 2 µg.kg⁻¹ groups. Taken together, the results of the present study suggested that conscious sedation with intranasal dexmedetomidine and local anesthesia may be an effective anesthetic for breast lumpectomy surgery, and that the optimal dose for intranasal dexmedetomidine administration may be 1.5 µg.kg⁻¹, as it resulted in good sedation and patient satisfaction without adverse effects.

Dexmedetomidine in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocols for Postoperative Pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Effective acute pain management has evolved considerably in recent years and is a primary area of focus in attempts to defend against the opioid epidemic. Persistent postsurgical pain (PPP) has an incidence of up to 30-50% and has negative outcome of quality of life and negative burden on individuals, family, and society. The 2016 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) guidelines states that enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) forms an integral part of Perioperative Surgical Home (PSH) and is now recommended to use a multimodal opioid-sparing approach for management of postoperative pain. As such, dexmedetomidine is now being used as part of ERAS protocols along with regional nerve blocks and other medications, to create a satisfactory postoperative outcome with reduced opioid consumption in the Post anesthesia care unit (PACU).

RECENT FINDINGS

Dexmedetomidine, a selective alpha2 agonist, possesses analgesic effects and has a different mechanism of action when compared with opioids. When dexmedetomidine is initiated at the end of a procedure, it has a better hemodynamic stability and pain response than ropivacaine. Dexmedetomidine can be used as an adjuvant in epidurals with local anesthetic sparing effects. Its use during nerve blocks results in reduced postoperative pain. Also, local infiltration of IV dexmedetomidine is associated with earlier discharge from PACU. Perioperative use of dexmedetomidine has significantly improved postoperative outcomes when used as part of ERAS protocols. An in-depth review of the use of dexmedetomidine in ERAS protocols is presented for clinical anesthesiologists.