Effect of Magnesium Sulphate and Dexmedetomidine on Blood Loss during Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgeries

Comparison of effects and safety in providing controlled hypotension during surgery between dexmedetomidine and magnesium sulphate: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

“…And then 4 studies were excluded by full-text review for they were performed in pediatric patients. At last, 10 RCTs were enrolled in further meta-analysis [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. The identification procedure of these eligible articles is described in Fig 1. The enrolled studies were published from 2011 to 2018, and all of them were published in English.…”

“…All ten studies described the effects of two medications in patients' hemodynamic parameters. The level of MAP observed in six studies was lower in patients receiving dexmedetomidine [15][16][17][20][21][22], and three studies [14,18,23] exhibited that the differences between two groups was not significant, only one study [19] indicated that the MAP of patients receiving magnesium sulphate was lower. In addition, according to the original data from seven studies [15][16][17][19][20][21][22], compare with those receiving magnesium, the patients in dexmedetomidine group…”

“…A total of 663 patients were randomized to receive two drugs. In 10 included RCTs, 5 were researches about head and neck surgery [14][15][16][17][18], 3 were researches about spinal surgery [19][20][21], and the rest two trials were researches about pituitary adenoma surgery [22] and laparoscopic colorectal resection surgery [23]. All enrolled studies reported the hemodynamic parameters (MAP, HR), and 6 studies reported the evaluation of surgical field bleeding by using 6-point scale [14][15][16][17][18]22].…”

“…The mentioned-above seven aspects including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting and other bias of selected RCTs were evaluated according to the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Seven studies used an adequate method of random sequence generation [14][15][16]19,20,21,22], and four studies [16,19,20,23] employed allocation concealment by using the opaque, sealed envelopes. Seven studies mentioned the blinding procedure of participants and personnel [14,[16][17][18]21,22] and the blinding procedure of outcome assessment was performed appropriately in four studies [14,[16][17][18].…”