A comparative study in the post-operative spine surgeries: Epidural ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine and ropivacaine with clonidine for post-operative analgesia

Regional and neuraxial anaesthesia techniques for spinal surgery: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Whilst general anaesthesia is commonly used to undertake spine surgery, the use of neuraxial and peripheral regional anaesthesia techniques for intraoperative and postoperative analgesia is an evolving practice. Variations in practice have meant that it is difficult to know which modalities achieve optimal outcomes for patients undergoing spinal surgery. Our objective was to identify available evidence on the use of regional and neuraxial anaesthesia techniques for adult patients undergoing spinal surgery.

METHODS

This study was conducted using a framework for scoping reviews. This included a search of six databases searching for articles published since January 1980. We included studies that involved adult patients undergoing spinal surgery with regional or neuraxial techniques used as the primary anaesthesia method or as part of an analgesic strategy.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight articles were selected for final review. All original papers were included, including case reports, case series, clinical trials, or conference publications. We found that general anaesthesia remains the most common anaesthesia technique for this patient cohort. However, regional anaesthesia, especially non-neuraxial techniques such as fascial plane blocks, is an emerging practice and may have a role in terms of improving postoperative pain relief, quality of recovery, and patient satisfaction. In comparison with neuraxial techniques, the popularity of fascial plane blocks for spinal surgery has significantly increased since 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

Regional and neuraxial anaesthesia techniques have been used both to provide analgesia and anaesthesia for patients undergoing spinal surgery. Outcome metrics for the success of these techniques vary widely and more frequently use physiological outcome metrics more than patient-centred ones.

Abstract No.: ABS3221: Comparison of Fentanyl and Dexmedetomidine as adjuvants to 0.2 % Ropivacaine Epidurally in Labour Analgesia

Background & Aims:

Childbirth being the most exciting event in the life of a female gets ruined because of cruciating and intolerable labour pain. This study compared quality of labour analgesia by using fentanyl and dexmedetomidine as adjuvants to 0.2% ropivacaine epidurally .

Methods:

Institutional Ethical Committee approval and patient consent was obtained. 60 enroled patients were divided into 2 groups Group RF: 0.2% ropivacaine + fentanyl 15µg (15ml) Group RD: 0.2% ropivacaine + dexmedetomidine 7.5 µg (15ml) Epidural catheter was inserted at the L2-L3 space and drug was administered. VAS, sensory, motor levels were assessed. Maternal and foetal adverse effects were noted. Maternal satisfaction was evaluated after 24 h. The results were expressed as mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables while frequency and percentage for discrete data. Continuous variables were analysed by using unpaired two-tailed Student t- test. Discrete data was analysed using Chi-square test. P<0.05 considered as statistically significant.

Results:

The demographical data like age, weight and height were comparable and had no influence on outcome of the study. Quality of analgesia was comparable in both groups (p>0.05) with no patient having poor quality. Early onset and longer duration of analgesia, less epidural top-ups, shorter duration of labour, less incidence of instrumental delivery and adverse effects were observed in Group RD compared with Group RF (p<0.05). Neonatal APGAR score was comparable between the groups.

Conclusion:

Both fentanyl and dexmedetomidine with 0.2% ropivacaine epidurally provide safe, effective and excellent quality of labour analgesia and equal foetal well-being and neonatal outcomes. Dexmedetomidine as adjuvant prolongs labour analgesia and shortens duration of labour.

Comparative Study of the Adverse Events Associated With Adjuvant Use of Dexmedetomidine and Clonidine in Local Anesthesia

Background: Although clonidine and dexmedetomidine are used as alpha-2 agonists to improve the quality and duration of blockade induced by local anesthetics, no study has been reported to compare their associated adverse events in local anesthesia. The aim of this study is to compare the adverse events associated with the adjuvant use of dexmedetomidine and clonidine in local anesthesia.

Methods: A comprehensive search was performed to retrieve any reported adverse event associated with adjuvant use of dexmedetomidine and clonidine in local anesthesia from published literature up to 1 July 2020. Assessment of the quality of included studies was performed by the Jadad score. A comparison of any reported adverse event was made between interventions by pooling data from studies using a direct meta-analysis technique. Dichotomous outcomes were summarized as risk ratios. The review was performed according to PRISMA guideline.

Results: From 121 articles retrieved from the search finally 14 articles including 1,120 patients had eligibility criteria for including in the meta-analysis. No significant difference was observed between bradycardia/hypotension (OR = 1.17; 95 % CI = 0.66–2.10; P = 0.580; I² = 53.78 %, P = 0.027), nausea/vomiting (OR = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.59-1.42; P = 0.706; I² = 0.0 %, P = 0.940) dizziness/headache (OR = 1.10; 95% CI = 0.44–2.75; P = 0.831; I² = 0.0 %, P = 0.882) shivering (OR = 0.95 % CI = 0.50–1.66; P = 0.831; I² = 0.0 %, P = 0.920) and dry mouth (OR = 1.00; 95 % CI = 0.50–1.96; P = 0.996; I² = 0.0%, P = 0.900). No significant difference was observed in subgroup comparison of adverse events in the intravenous or local adjuvant use of the study drugs (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: There is no difference in adverse events associated with the intravenous or local adjuvant use of dexmedetomidine and clonidine in local anesthesia.

Influence of Epidural Ropivacaine with or without Dexmedetomidine on Postoperative Analgesia and Patient Satisfaction after Thoraco-Lumbar Spine Instrumentation: A Randomized, Comparative, and Double-Blind Study

Study Design

This was a prospective, randomized, and double-blind study.

Purpose

Thoraco-lumbar spine surgery is associated with severe postoperative pain and can cause chronic pain. We aimed to compare the impact of epidural ropivacaine with and without dexmedetomidine on postoperative analgesia after thoracolumbar spine instrumentation wherein an epidural catheter was placed by the surgeon intraoperatively.

Overview of Literature

Very few studies have reported the use of epidural dexmedetomidine in spine surgeries. When used via the epidural route, dexmedetomidine is safe and efficacious and is associated with reduced rescue analgesia consumption, increased duration of analgesia, reduced pain scores, but not with major hemodynamic adverse effects.

Methods

Total 60 American Society of Anesthesiologists I–III adult patients aged 18–65 years who were scheduled to undergo thoraco-lumbar spine instrumentation were randomly allocated into group RD (epidural ropivacaine+dexmedetomidine) or group R (epidural ropivacaine plus saline). We aimed to compare the total rescue analgesic consumption on postoperative day 0, 1, and 2. Moreover, we studied the time to first rescue analgesia with visual analogue scale score <4 and the overall patient satisfaction scores.

Results

There was no difference between the demographic characteristics of the two groups. The mean value of total rescue analgesia consumption was 162.5±68.4 mg in the RD group and 247.5±48.8 mg in the R group. The mean time to first rescue analgesia was 594.6±83.0 minutes in the RD group and 103.6±53.2 minutes in the R group. The mean patient satisfaction score was 4.2±0.7 in the RD group and 3.2±0.6 in the R group. No patient had any respiratory depression or prolonged motor blockade during the postoperative period.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated the superior efficacy, in terms of postoperative analgesia and patient satisfaction scores, of epidural ropivacaine plus dexmedetomidine over that of ropivacaine alone in patients undergoing surgery for thoraco-lumbar spine.

Comparison of the Analgesic Efficacy of a Single Dose of Epidural Dexmedetomidine versus Fentanyl as an Adjuvant to Bupivacaine in Abdominal Surgery

Background:

Fentanyl as an epidural additive act on spinal opioid receptors, while dexmedetomidine has selective alpha-2 receptor agonist action enhancing analgesic effects.

Aims:

We aimed to compare the postoperative analgesic efficacy of single doses of dexmedetomidine against fentanyl as epidural adjuvant to 0.125% bupivacaine.

Settings and Design:

A prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind trial was conducted in a tertiary care teaching institute.

Patients and Methods:

Forty-six patients undergoing abdominal surgery under general anesthesia with epidural analgesia were allocated into two groups to receive postoperative analgesia with single doses of 10 mL 0.125% bupivacaine with the addition of dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg.kg-1 (Group D) or fentanyl 0.5 μg.kg-1 (Group F). The primary outcome was the duration of postoperative analgesia between the two groups. The secondary outcomes were hemodynamic variations, vasopressor need, and motor blockade.

Statistical Analysis:

Chi-square test for static parameters and Student's t-test or Mann–Whitney test for continuous variables were used for analysis.

Results:

The duration of analgesia was longer in Group D (5.0 ± 2.0 h) versus Group F (2.9 ± 1.4 h), Sixteen patients in Group D versus seven patients in Group F needed vasopressors after the bolus to maintain the blood pressure (BP) within 20% of prebolus value (P = 0.018). Heart rate and mean and systolic BP were lower in Group D at various time points following bolus administration.

Conclusion:

A single dose of dexmedetomidine as an additive to epidural local anesthetic postoperatively prolongs the duration of analgesia in comparison to fentanyl but is associated with changes in hemodynamics, including the need for the administration of vasoactive drugs.

Clonidine as an Adjuvant to Caudal Epidural Ropivacaine for Lumbosacral Spine Surgeries

Background:

Caudal epidural analgesia is a proven technique for providing analgesia for spinal surgeries. Prolonged pain relief with no motor blockade is desired for early mobilization.

Objective:

The objective of this study is to compare the effect of adding 1 μg/kg of clonidine to injection ropivacaine 0.2% with respect to duration of analgesia, hemodynamic effects, and associated side effects.

Methodology:

In this prospective double-blind study, a total of 60 patients undergoing lumbosacral spine surgery were randomized to receive 25 cc caudal epidural injection of either injection ropivacaine 0.2% (Group R, n = 30) or a mixture of injection ropivacaine 0.2% and injection clonidine 1 μg/kg (Group RD, n = 30) under general anesthesia after the patient was positioned prone for surgery. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores, heart rate, blood pressures, and time to rescue analgesia and sedation score were recorded at regular intervals for the first 24 h.

Results:

Mean VAS scores were significantly lower in the RC Group for up to 12 h following the caudal block. The time to first rescue analgesic was prolonged in the RC group compared to the R Group, and it was statistically significant. No clinically significant hemodynamic changes were noted in either of the groups. No other side effects were seen in both the groups.

Conclusion:

These results suggest that injection clonidine is an effective additive to injection ropivacaine for caudal epidural analgesia in lumbosacral spine surgeries.

Alpha-2 adrenergic agonists for the prevention of cardiac complications among adults undergoing surgery

BACKGROUND

The surgical stress response plays an important role on the pathogenesis of perioperative cardiac complications. Alpha-2 adrenergic agonists attenuate this response and may help prevent postoperative cardiac complications.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of α-2 adrenergic agonists for reducing mortality and cardiac complications in adults undergoing cardiac surgery and non-cardiac surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2017, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to April Week 4, 2017), Embase (1980 to May 2017), the Science Citation Index, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of included articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared α-2 adrenergic agonists (i.e. clonidine, dexmedetomidine or mivazerol) against placebo or non-α-2 adrenergic agonists. Included trials had to evaluate the efficacy and safety of α-2 adrenergic agonists for preventing perioperative mortality or cardiac complications (or both), or measure one or more relevant outcomes (i.e. death, myocardial infarction, heart failure, acute stroke, supraventricular tachyarrhythmia and myocardial ischaemia).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality, extracted data and independently performed computer entry of abstracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Adverse event data were gathered from the trials. We evaluated included studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the quality of the evidence underlying pooled treatment effects using GRADE methodology. Given the clinical heterogeneity between cardiac and non-cardiac surgery, we analysed these subgroups separately. We expressed treatment effects as pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 47 trials with 17,039 participants. Of these studies, 24 trials only included participants undergoing cardiac surgery, 23 only included participants undergoing non-cardiac surgery and eight only included participants undergoing vascular surgery. The α-2 adrenergic agonist studied was clonidine in 21 trials, dexmedetomidine in 24 trials and mivazerol in two trials.In non-cardiac surgery, there was high quality evidence that α-2 adrenergic agonists led to a similar risk of all-cause mortality compared with control groups (1.3% with α-2 adrenergic agonists versus 1.7% with control; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.04; participants = 14,081; studies = 16). Additionally, the risk of cardiac mortality was similar between treatment groups (0.8% with α-2 adrenergic agonists versus 1.0% with control; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.23; participants = 12,525; studies = 5, high quality evidence). The risk of myocardial infarction was probably similar between treatment groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27; participants = 13,907; studies = 12, moderate quality evidence). There was no associated effect on the risk of stroke (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.56; participants = 11,542; studies = 7; high quality evidence). Conversely, α-2 adrenergic agonists probably increase the risks of clinically significant bradycardia (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.13; participants = 14,035; studies = 16) and hypotension (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.48; participants = 13,738; studies = 15), based on moderate quality evidence.There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of α-2 adrenergic agonists on all-cause mortality in cardiac surgery (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.04; participants = 1947; studies = 16) and myocardial infarction (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.40; participants = 782; studies = 8), based on moderate quality evidence. There was one cardiac death in the clonidine arm of a study of 22 participants. Based on very limited data, α-2 adrenergic agonists may have reduced the risk of stroke (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.93; participants = 1175; studies = 7; outcome events = 18; low quality evidence). Conversely, α-2 adrenergic agonists increased the risk of bradycardia from 6.4% to 12.0% (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.62; participants = 1477; studies = 10; moderate quality evidence), but their effect on hypotension was uncertain (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.64; participants = 1413; studies = 9; low quality evidence).These results were qualitatively unchanged in subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review concludes that prophylactic α-2 adrenergic agonists generally do not prevent perioperative death or major cardiac complications. For non-cardiac surgery, there is moderate-to-high quality evidence that these agents do not prevent death, myocardial infarction or stroke. Conversely, there is moderate quality evidence that these agents have important adverse effects, namely increased risks of hypotension and bradycardia. For cardiac surgery, there is moderate quality evidence that α-2 adrenergic agonists have no effect on the risk of mortality or myocardial infarction, and that they increase the risk of bradycardia. The quality of evidence was inadequate to draw conclusions regarding the effects of alpha-2 agonists on stroke or hypotension during cardiac surgery.

Postoperative Analgesia with Epidural Dexmedetomidine Compared with Clonidine following Total Abdominal Hysterectomies: A Prospective Double-blind Randomized Trial

Background and Aims:

Anesthesia for total abdominal hysterectomies is not only concerned with relieving pain during intraoperative period but also during the postoperative period. We compared clonidine and dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to levobupivacaine for epidural analgesia with respect to onset and duration of sensory block, duration of analgesia, and adverse effects.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 80 individuals between the age of 45 and 65 years of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status Classes I and II who underwent total abdominal hysterectomies were randomly allocated into two groups, comprising 40 patients in each group. Group LC received 10 ml of 0.125% levobupivacaine and 2 μg/kg of clonidine while Group LD received 10 ml of 0.125% levobupivacaine and 1 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine through the epidural catheter. Onset of analgesia, time of peak effect, duration of analgesia, cardiorespiratory parameters, side effects, and need of rescue intravenous (IV) analgesics were observed. The data analysis was carried out with Z-test and Chi-square test.

Results:

The demographic profile and ASA physical classes were comparable between the groups. Group LD had early onset, early peak effect, prolonged duration, and stable cardiorespiratory parameters when compared with Group LC. Less number of patients (42.5%) in Group LD required IV rescue analgesics when compared to Group LC (70%) and was statistically significant. The side effects’ profile was also comparable.

Conclusion:

Dexmedetomidine is a better neuraxial adjuvant compared with clonidine for providing early onset and prolonged postoperative analgesia and stable cardiorespiratory parameters.

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.

Comparing the Efficacy of Caudal with Intravenous Dexamethasone in the Management of Pain Following Lumbosacral Spine Surgeries: A Randomized Double Blinded Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

The challenge in providing analgesia for spine surgeries is to provide extended postoperative pain relief and simultaneously allow early neurological assessment and mobilization. Our study aimed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of intravenous versus caudal dexamethasone in lumbosacral spine surgeries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective double-blind study, a total of 96 patients undergoing lumbosacral spine surgery were randomized into three groups to receive 25 ml of preemptive caudal epidural injection of either injection ropivacaine 0.2% (Group A, n = 32), a 25 ml of injection ropivacaine 0.2%, and intravenous injection dexamethasone 8 mg (Group B, n = 32) or 25 ml mixture of injection ropivacaine 0.2% with injection dexamethasone 8 mg (Group C, n = 32) under general anesthesia. Visual analog scale (VAS), heart rate, blood pressures, blood sugar levels, and time to rescue analgesia were recorded at regular intervals for the first 24 h. Time to discharge was noted. Analysis of variance has been used to find the significance of study parameters between the groups of patients. Statistical software, namely, SAS 9.2 and SPSS 15.0, have been used for the analysis of the data.

RESULTS

The mean VAS was significantly lower in the Group C for up to 24 h following the caudal block. No significant hemodynamic changes were noted in any of the groups. The intravenous dexamethasone group showed higher blood glucose levels at 24 h but was not clinically relevant.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that injection dexamethasone is a safe adjunct to caudal ropivacaine in lumbosacral spine surgeries.

Comparison between Epidural Ropivacaine versus Ropivacaine with Clonidine in Patients Undergoing Abdominal Hysterectomy: A Randomized Study

CONTEXT

Regional anesthesia has emerged as one of the preferred and convenient modes for intra- and post-operative management owing to its advantage of not interfering with the metabolic functions, better tolerability, and decrease in reflex activity. In recent years, ropivacaine has increasingly replaced bupivacaine as a preferred local anesthetic because of its similar analgesic properties, lesser motor blockade, and decreased propensity of cardiotoxicity. Neuraxial adjuvant such as clonidine used in epidural anesthesia offers advantage by augmenting the local anesthetic effect and reducing the anesthetic and analgesic requirement.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Comparison of onset, duration of sensory and motor block, and any adverse effects between 0.5% ropivacaine with normal saline versus 0.5% ropivacaine with clonidine (75 μg/kg).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective randomized study was carried out in 50 patients (25 in each group) of American Society of Anesthesiologist Grade 1 and 2 scheduled for abdominal hysterectomy under epidural block. Group-1 (ropivacaine-clonidine [RC]): Epidural ropivacaine 20 ml (0.5%) with 0.75 μg/kg clonidine. Group-2 (ropivacaine [R]): Epidural ropivacaine 20 ml (0.5%) with normal saline. Onset, duration of sensory-motor block, heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate were recorded.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The statistical analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 15.0. Chi-square test, ANOVA, Student's t-test, and paired t-test were used.

RESULTS

Groups were comparable with regard to demographic data and hemodynamic stability. Onset of sensory and motor blockade was faster in RC group as compared to R group. Duration of postoperative analgesia was significantly prolonged in RC group. No potential side effect was seen in either group.

CONCLUSION

On account of faster onset, hemodynamic stability, and prolonged postoperative analgesia, ropivacaine with clonidine is a better option than ropivacaine alone.

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.

A Comparative Study for Post Operative Analgesia in the Emergency Laparotomies: Thoracic Epidural Ropivacaine with Nalbuphine and Ropivacaine with Butorphanol

BACKGROUND

Adequate postoperative pain therapy for emergency abdominal surgeries is important far beyond the perioperative period because sensitization to painful stimuli can cause postoperative morbidity. A prospective, double-blind, randomized study was carried out to compare the quality of postoperative analgesia and side-effect profile between epidurally administered butorphanol and nalbuphine as an adjuvant to 0.2% ropivacaine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of eighty patients, 43 men and 37 women between the age of 18 and 65 years of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Class I E and II E, who underwent intestinal perforation repair surgery were randomly allocated into two groups ropivacaine with butorphanol (RB) and ropivacaine with nalbuphine (RN), comprising of 40 patients each. Group RB received 0.2% ropivacaine containing 2 mg butorphanol while Group RN received 0.2% ropivacaine containing 10 mg nalbuphine through thoracic epidural catheter. Quality of analgesia, cardiorespiratory parameters, side-effects, and the need of rescue intravenous analgesia were observed.

RESULTS

The demographic profile and ASA Class were comparable between the groups. RN group had good quality of analgesia and stable cardiorespiratory parameters for the initial 6 h of postoperative period, after which they were comparable in both groups. Furthermore, the need of rescue analgesia was higher (20%) in the RB group during the first 6 h. The side-effect profile was comparable with a little higher incidence of nausea in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Thoracic epidurally administered ropivacaine with nalbuphine is more effective than ropivacaine with butorphanol for immediate postoperative pain relief in patients undergoing emergency exploratory laparotomy.

The efficacy and safety of epidural dexmedetomidine and clonidine with bupivacaine in patients undergoing lower limb orthopedic surgeries

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Alpha (α-2) adrenergic agonists have both analgesic and sedative properties when used as an adjuvant in regional anesthesia. A prospective randomized double-blind study was carried out to evaluate the efficacy of epidural route and to compare the efficacy and clinical profile of dexmedetomidine and clonidine as an adjuvant to bupivacaine with special emphasis on their quality of analgesia, sedation and the ability to provide the smooth intra-operative and postoperative course.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was conducted in prospective, randomized and double-blind manner. It included 60 American Society of Anesthesiologists Class I and II patients undergoing lower limb surgery under epidural anesthesia. Patients were randomly divided into Group A receiving 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine 15 ml with dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg and Group B receiving 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine 15 ml with clonidine 2 μg/kg epidurally. Onset and duration of sensory and motor blocks, duration of analgesia, sedation, and adverse effects were assessed.

RESULTS

Demographic data, surgical characteristics cardio-respiratory parameters, side-effect profile were comparable and statistically not significant in both the groups. However, sedation scores with dexmedetomidine were better than clonidine and turned out to be statistically significant. The onset times for sensory and motor blocks were significantly shorter in Group A as compared to Group B. The duration of analgesia and motor block was significantly longer in A Group as compared to Group B.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine is a superior neuraxial adjuvant to bupivacaine when compared to clonidine for early onset of analgesia, superior intra-operative analgesia, stable cardio-respiratory parameters, prolonged postoperative analgesia and providing patient comfort.

Dexmedetomidine as an Adjuvant to Pre-Emptive Caudal Epidural Ropivacaine for Lumbosacral Spine Surgeries

INTRODUCTION

Pre-emptive caudal epidural is a proven technique for providing analgesia for spinal surgeries. Prolonged pain relief with no motor blockade is desired for early mobilisation.

AIM

Present study aimed to evaluate the effect of addition of Inj dexmedetomidine to caudal ropivacaine on the duration of analgesia, haemodynamic profile and the associated side effects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective double-blind study a total of 60 patients undergoing lumbosacral spine surgery were randomised to receive 20 cc of pre-emptive caudal epidural injection of either inj ropivacaine 0.2% (Group R, n =30) or a mixture of Inj ropivacaine 0.2% and Inj dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg (Group RD, n =30) under general anaesthesia after the patient was positioned prone for surgery. VAS scores, heart rate, blood pressures and time to rescue analgesia were recorded at regular intervals for the first 24 hours. Data analysis was carried out using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS, V 10.5 package).

RESULTS

Mean VAS scores were significantly lower in the RD group for up to 12 hours following the caudal block. No clinically significant haemodynamic changes were noted in either of the groups. No other side effects were seen in both the groups.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that inj dexmedetomidine is an effective additive to inj ropivacaine for pre-emptive caudal epidural analgesia in lumbosacral spine surgeries.

Comparison of Dexmedetomidine and Clonidine as Adjuvants to Local Anesthetics for Intrathecal Anesthesia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The authors performed a meta-analysis to compare the characteristics of clonidine and dexmedetomidine as adjuvants to local anesthetic in intravertebral anesthesia. Four investigators independently searched electronic databases for randomized trials comparing the characteristics of clonidine vs dexmedetomidine as adjuvants to local anesthetic on adults. The endpoints were onset of analgesia, sensory and motor block, and duration of analgesia. A random-effects model was used to perform quantitative analysis. Seven studies comprising 354 subjects were included in this meta-analysis. The onset of sensory block was significantly 40 seconds shorter when dexmedetomidine was added as an adjuvant in the intrathecal injection. The duration of stable sensory block, duration of overall sensory block, and the time before the need for analgesic requirements were significantly extended, 10.8 minutes, 22.3 minutes, and 38.6 minutes, respectively, when dexmedetomidine was used as an adjuvant to local anesthetics (bupivacaine or ropivacaine). No significant differences were detected in the motor block characteristics and the time to achieve peak sensory level between dexmedetomidine and clonidine as adjuvants to local anesthetics. Compared to clonidine, the addition of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to local anesthetics is associated with earlier, prolonged sensory block characteristics and later need for analgesic requirements.

Analgesic Effect of Clonidine Added to Bupivacaine in Spinal Anesthesia for Cruciate Ligament Repair

Background:

Several researchers have suggested that addition of local anesthetics to spinal anesthesia increases the duration of post-operative analgesia.

Objectives:

This study sought to assess the effect of addition of clonidine to bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia on analgesia after cruciate ligament repair.

Patients and Methods:

This double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 50 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II patients who were candidates for cruciate ligament repair. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups; one group received 15 mg of bupivacaine (group B) and the other 15 mg of bupivacaine plus clonidine (75 µg, group BC). The two groups were compared in terms of post-operative analgesia and related factors using the SPSS software version 20.

Results:

All patients were males with a mean age of 24.9 years in group B, and 25.2 years in group BC (P > 0.05). In group BC, time lapse to request analgesics was 160 minutes longer and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at this time was 0.3 units less than group B. The time to regression of sensory block by two dermatomes was seven minutes longer, VAS in the recovery room was 1 unit less and Bromage scale in the recovery room and ward was 0.6 and 0.9 units more, respectively in the BC group. Hypotension and ephedrine usage was 36% more in the BC group (P < 0.05).

Conclusions:

Clonidine plus bupivacaine can increase the duration of motor and sensory block in arthroscopic cruciate ligament repair under spinal anesthesia. However, due to significant hemodynamic changes, further studies are required to determine a safer dose.

Efficacy of clonidine as an adjuvant to ropivacaine in supraclavicular brachial plexus block: A prospective study

Background and Aims:

Bupivacaine has been the most frequently used local anaesthetic in brachial plexus block, but ropivacaine has also been successfully tried in the recent past. It is less cardiotoxic, less arrhythmogenic, less toxic to the central nervous system than bupivacaine, and it has intrinsic vasoconstrictor property. The effects of clonidine have been studied in peripheral nerve blockade. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of clonidine on nerve blockade during brachial plexus block with ropivacaine using peripheral nerve stimulator.

Methods:

Sixty patients were randomly divided into two groups, Group A and B. Group A received 30 ml of 0.5% of ropivacaine with 0.5 ml normal saline while Group B received same amount of ropivacaine with 0.5 ml (equivalent to 75 μg) of clonidine for supraclavicular brachial plexus block. The groups were compared regarding quality of sensory and motor blockade, duration of post-operative analgesia and intra and post-operative complications.

Results:

There was a significant increase in duration of motor and sensory block and analgesia in Group B as compared to Group A patients (P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in onset time in either group (P = 0.304). No significant side effects were noted.

Conclusion:

The addition of 75 μg of clonidine to ropivacaine for brachial plexus block prolongs motor and sensory block and analgesia without significant side effects.

Low-dose epidural dexmedetomidine improves thoracic epidural anaesthesia for nephrectomy

Thoracic epidural anaesthesia alone is an applied technique of anaesthesia for nephrectomy which has both advantages and limitations. Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective alpha2-adrenoreceptor agonist which has both central and peripheral analgesic properties. Forty patients undergoing nephrectomy were enrolled in this clinical trial and allocated randomly to two groups, a control group (C group) and a dexmedetomidine group (D group). The C group received epidural 0.75% levobupivacaine 12 ml with 1 ml of isotonic sodium chloride solution, while the D group received epidural 0.75% levobupivacaine 12 ml with 1 ml (0.5 µg/kg) of dexmedetomidine. Haemodynamic changes, onset time and duration of sensory and motor block, muscle relaxation score, verbal rating score for pain, sedation score and the total postoperative analgesic consumption were evaluated. Sensory blockade duration was longer in the D group than in the C group (P=0.01). The incidence of motor block and the muscle relaxation score were significantly higher in the D group compared with the C group (P=0.01). Compared with the C group, pain scores were significantly lower in the first four postoperative hours in the D group (two hours rest P=0.038; two hours activity P=0.009; four hours rest P=0.044; four hours activity P=0.003). The total amount of flurbiprofen analgesic was significantly lower in the D group compared with the C group (P=0.03). Epidural dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg/kg appears to intensify thoracic epidural anaesthesia with levobupivacaine.