BACKGROUND:Postoperative pain may produce a range of detrimental acute and chronic effects. Subarachnoid block provided by Bupivacaine alone may be too short for the planned postoperative analgesia. Intrathecal Clonidine in varying dosages has been used as an additive to local anaesthetics to prolong the duration of subarachnoid block. AIM: Studies using lower doses of Clonidine i.e. <1mcg/kg are minimal. This study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of two different doses of intrathecal Clonidine as an adjuvant to 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine to prolong the duration of analgesia. METHODS: In this randomized clinical study 60 patients scheduled for Tibial intramedullary nailing were divided into two groups. Group 1 received 0.5% Hyperbaric Bupivacaine 2.5ml with 0.5ml of 0.5mcg/kg Clonidine and Group 2 received 0.5% Hyperbaric Bupivacaine 2.5ml with 0.5ml of 1mcg/kg Clonidine. Onset of sensory and motor block, maximum level of sensory blockade attained and time for the same were recorded. Sedation score was noted. Vital parameters were recorded preoperatively. Duration of analgesia and time to recovery from motor and sensory blockade were recorded .Patients were observed for any adverse events and treated accordingly. RESULTS:The onset of sensory block in group 1 and group 2 was 2.17±0.36 min and 1.58±0.35 min respectively. Time to onset of motor block was 3.05±0.36 min in group 1 and 2.33±0.50 min in group 2. Total duration of sensory block was noted to be 258.17±10.21min and 289.33±15.24 min in group 1 and group 2 respectively. Total duration of motor block in group 1 and 2 were 228.83±10.96 min and 260.33±14.74 min. The duration of analgesia was 306.33±18.24 min in group 1 and 351.00±15.83 min in group 2. Hemodynamically no statistically significant variations were noted. Sedations scores were similar. No other untoward complications were observed. CONCLUSION: Both the doses of Clonidine as an adjuvant prolong the duration of analgesia of 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine in the study groups. Though the difference in duration of analgesia is statistically significant, clinically it's about 45 minutes only. No significant differences were noted pertaining to hemodynamic changes and complications. 0.5mcg /kg of clonidine is almost as effective as 1mcg/kg of clonidine in the patients studied. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:
BACKGROUND The purpose of the present study was to assess the knowledge and perception of safety protocols used before and after dental aerosol procedures among dental professionals. METHODS An online survey was conducted with a self-prepared questionnaire with a sample size of 354 participants consisting of postgraduate students, and dental practitioners who work in private/government institutes/hospitals. The questionnaire was prepared on Google forms and the link was circulated to postgraduate students and dental practitioners via email and WhatsApp platforms. Descriptive statistics analysis was carried out including frequency and percentage. The results of the study were tabulated. RESULTS 94.9 % of the participants performed aerosol-generating procedures, and 76.8 % of the participants used personal protective equipment (PPE) during the procedure. 43.2 % of the participants preferred reusable elastomeric respirators with cartridges. 37.9 % of the participants responded that ventilation is the preferred method. 75.4 % of the participants felt incorrect doffing of the PPE could increase the chances of contracting the coronavirus. 83.3 % of the participants felt using PPE reduces performance and skills during dental aerosol procedures. CONCLUSIONS The present study revealed that 76.8 % of the participants used PPE during aerosol-generating procedures, 54 % and 39.5 % of the participants knew the first procedure in donning and doffing PPE respectively, and 73.7 % of the participants knew which area to doff the PPE in whereas only 48 % knew the correct colour of the bag in which to dispose the PPE and only 49.7 % of the participants knew when to fumigate the aerosol generated surgical area.
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.