Efforts to find a better adjuvant in regional anaesthesia are underway since long. Aims and objectives are to compare the efficacy and clinical profile of two α-2 adrenergic agonists, dexmedetomidine and clonidine, in epidural anaesthesia with special emphasis on their sedative properties and an ability to provide smooth intra-operative and post-operative analgesia. A prospective randomized study was carried out which included 50 adult female patients between the ages of 44 and 65 years of (American Society of Anaesthesiologists) ASAI/II grade who underwent vaginal hysterectomies. The patients were randomly allocated into two groups; ropivacaine + dexmedetomidine (RD) and ropivacaine + clonidine (RC), comprising of 25 patients each. Group RD was administered 17 ml of 0.75% epidural ropivacaine and 1.5 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine, while group RC received admixture of 17 ml of 0.75% ropivacaine and 2 μg/kg of clonidine. Onset of analgesia, sensory and motor block levels, sedation, duration of analgesia and side effects were observed. The data obtained was subjected to statistical computation with analysis of variance and chi-square test using statistical package for social science (SPSS) version 10.0 for windows and value of P < 0.05 was considered significant and P < 0.0001 as highly significant. The demographic profile, initial and post-operative block characteristics and cardio-respiratory parameters were comparable and statistically non-significant in both the groups. However, sedation scores with dexmedetomidine were better than clonidine and turned out to be statistically significant (P < 0.05). The side effect profile was also comparable with a little higher incidence of nausea and dry mouth in both the groups which was again a non-significant entity (P > 0.05). Dexmedetomidine is a better neuraxial adjuvant compared to clonidine for providing early onset of sensory analgesia, adequate sedation and a prolonged post-operative analgesia.
Background and Context:Different adjuvants been tried out for neuraxial anesthesia in emergency caesarean section so that the dose of the local anesthetic can be reduced and hypotension thereby prevented.Aims and Objectives:The present study was carried out in patients presenting for emergency lower segment caesarean section (LSCS) to establish the dose of intrathecal clonidine that would allow reduction of the dose of local anesthetic (thereby reducing the incidence and magnitude of hypotension) while at the same time providing clinically relevant prolongation of spinal anesthesia without significant side effects.Materials and Methods:This randomized clinical study was carried out in our institution among 100 pregnant females who underwent emergency caesarean section. The participants were divided randomly into four groups: A, B, C, and D, each comprising 25 parturients. Subarachnoid block was performed using a 26G Quincke needle, with 12 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine (LA) in group A, 9 mg of LA + 30 μg of clonidine in group B, LA + 37.5 μg of clonidine in group C, and LA + 45 μg of clonidine in group D. The solution was uniformly made up to 2.2 mL with normal saline in all the groups. Onset of analgesia at T10 level, sensory and motor blockade levels, maternal heart rate and blood pressure, neonatal Apgar scores, postoperative block characteristics, and adverse events were looked for and recorded. Statistical analysis was carried out with SPSS® version 10.0 for Windows®, using the ANOVA test with post hoc significance, the Chi-square test, and the Mann-Whitney U test. P<.05 was considered significant and P<.0001 as highly significant.Results:One hundred patients were enrolled for this study. The four groups were comparable with regard to demographic data and neonatal Apgar scores. Onset and establishment of sensory and motor analgesia was significantly shorter in groups C and D, while hypotension (and the use of vasopressors) was significantly higher in groups A and D. Perioperative shivering, nausea, and vomiting were significantly higher in groups A and D, while incidence of dry mouth was significantly higher in group D.Conclusions:The addition of 45 μg, 37.5 μg, and 30 μg of clonidine to hyperbaric bupivacaine results in more prolonged complete and effective analgesia, allowing reduction of up to 18% of the total dose of hyperbaric bupivacaine. From the results of this study, 37.5 μg of clonidine seems to be the optimal dose.
Background and Aim:Neuraxial adjuvants augment the action of local anesthetics. The aim is to determine the qualitative and quantitative aspects of epidural block of ropivacaine 0.75% versus ropivacaine 0.75% with clonidine for elective cesarean section.Settings and Design:A randomized double-blind study was conducted among 51 healthy parturients, scheduled for elective cesarean section, at Gian Sagar Medical College and Hospital, Banur, Punjab, India.Materials and Methods:Epidural block was administered with 20 ml of ropivacaine 0.75% (group R) and ropivacaine 0.75% and clonidine 75 µg (group RC) and anesthetic level was achieved minimum until T6–T7 dermatome. Onset time of analgesia, sensory and motor block levels, maternal heart rate and blood pressure, neonatal Apgar scores, postoperative analgesic dose and adverse events were recorded.Results:Fifty one patients were enrolled in this study and were subjected to statistical analysis. Groups were comparable with regard to demographic data, neonatal Apgar scores and incidences of side effects except for the higher incidence of dry mouth in patients of RC group. Onset of analgesia was much shorter in RC group along with prolonged duration of analgesia. The incidence of bradycardia and hypotension was more in RC group as compared to R group which was statistically significant. The dose requirement for postoperative pain relief was significantly lesser in RC group.Conclusions:The addition of 75 µg clonidine to isobaric epidural ropivacaine results in longer, complete and effective analgesia with similar block properties and helped to reduce the effective dose of ropivacaine when compared with plain ropivacaine for cesarean delivery.
The aim was to determine qualitative and quantitative aspects of caudal block, haemodynamic effects, and post-operative pain relief of ropivacaine 0.25% versus ropivacaine 0.25% with clonidine for lower abdominal surgeries in paediatric patients. A double-blind study was conducted among 44 paediatric patients in the Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care of our institute. A total of 44 ASA-I paediatric patients between the ages of 1 and 9 years, scheduled for elective hernia surgery, were enrolled in this randomised double-blind study. The caudal block was administered with ropivacaine 0.25% (Group I) and ropivacaine 0.25% and clonidine 2 µg/kg (Group II) after induction with general anaesthesia. Haemodynamic parameters were observed before, during and after the surgical procedure. Post-operative analgesic duration, total dose of rescue analgesia, pain scores and any side effects were looked for and recorded. All the results were tabulated and analysed statistically. The variables in the two groups were compared using the non-parametric tests. For all statistical analyses, the level of significance was P < 0.05. Forty-four patients were enrolled in this study and their data were subjected to statistical analysis: 22 patients in both the groups were comparable with regard to demographic data, haemodynamic parameters and other vitals and were statistically non-significant (P>0.05). The duration of analgesia was significantly prolonged in Group II (P<0.05). The dose requirement for post-operative pain relief was also significantly lesser in Group II. The incidences of side effects were almost comparable and non-significant. A caudal block with 0.25% of isobaric ropivacaine combined with 2 µg/kg of clonidine provides efficient analgesia intra-operatively and prolonged duration of analgesia post-operatively.
Background and Aims:Keeping in consideration the merits of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), a genuine attempt was made to find the ideal drug combinations which can be used in general anesthesia. This study was conducted to evaluate and compare two drug combinations of TIVA using propofol–ketamine and propofol–fentanyl and to study the induction, maintenance and recovery characteristics following anesthesia with these techniques.Settings and Design:A case control study was conducted, which included 100 patients, in the department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive care, Government Medical College and Hospital, Patiala.Patients and Methods:A hundred patients between the ages of 20 and 50 years of either gender were divided into two groups of 50 each, and they underwent elective surgery of approximately 1 h duration. Group I received propofol–ketamine while group II received propofol–fentanyl for induction and maintenance of anesthesia. All the results were tabulated and analyzed statistically with student's unpaired t-test and chi-square test.Results:Propofol–fentanyl combination produced a significantly greater fall in pulse rate (PR; 9.28% versus 0.23%) and in both systolic (7.94% versus 0.12%) and diastolic blood pressures (BP; 8.10% versus 0.35%) as compared to propofol–ketamine during induction of anesthesia. Propofol–ketamine combination produced stable hemodynamics during maintenance phase while on the other hand propofol–fentanyl was associated with a slight increase in both PR and BP. During recovery, ventilation score was better in group I while movement and wakefulness score was better in group II. Mean time to protrusion of tongue and lifting of head was shorter in group I.Conclusions:Both propofol–ketamine and propofol–fentanyl combinations produce rapid, pleasant and safe anesthesia with only a few untoward side effects and only minor hemodynamic effects.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.