Comparison of Dexmedetomidine with Midazolam as an adjuvant with Propofol for insertion of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in Children.

Pooja Gunwal, Sapna Bathla, Anju Kumari, Jeetendra Kumar Bajaj
{"title":"Comparison of Dexmedetomidine with Midazolam as an adjuvant with Propofol for insertion of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in Children.","authors":"Pooja Gunwal,&nbsp;Sapna Bathla,&nbsp;Anju Kumari,&nbsp;Jeetendra Kumar Bajaj","doi":"10.5152/TJAR.2023.21428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Propofol is required in higher doses for smooth insertion of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway. The ideal adjuvant drug so as to minimise induction doses of propofol is still not known. Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are equally effective for premedication in children. We have designed this study to compare dexmedetomidine and midazolam as adjuvants with propofol for insertion characteristics of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 130 paediatric patients undergoing elective surgery were randomly allocated into 2 groups of 65 each. One group was induced using propofol, fentanyl and midazolam, whereas the other group received propofol, fentanyl and dexmedetomidine. Subsequently, insertion characteristics of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway were documented in terms of number of attempts and by using modified Muzi score. Post-operative sedation was recorded by Ramsay Sedation Scale and pain was assessed by using Wong-Baker Faces pain scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 130 patients, ProSeal laryngeal mask airway was inserted in a second attempt in only 5 patients of midazolam group. Time taken for insertion was significantly higher among the midazolam group (21 seconds) than the dexmedetomidine group (19 seconds). A total of 93.8% of patients administered dexmedetomidine had excellent Muzi scores in comparison to midazolam group where only 13.8% patients had excellent Muzi scores (P < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Dexmedetomidine in a dose of 1 μg kg-1 as compared to midazolam (20 μg kg-1) produces better insertion characteristics for ProSeal laryngeal mask airway when used as adjuvant with propofol in terms of jaw opening, ease of insertion, coughing, gagging, patient movement, and laryngospasm.</p>","PeriodicalId":23353,"journal":{"name":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10210856/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2023.21428","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Propofol is required in higher doses for smooth insertion of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway. The ideal adjuvant drug so as to minimise induction doses of propofol is still not known. Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are equally effective for premedication in children. We have designed this study to compare dexmedetomidine and midazolam as adjuvants with propofol for insertion characteristics of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway.

Methods: A total of 130 paediatric patients undergoing elective surgery were randomly allocated into 2 groups of 65 each. One group was induced using propofol, fentanyl and midazolam, whereas the other group received propofol, fentanyl and dexmedetomidine. Subsequently, insertion characteristics of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway were documented in terms of number of attempts and by using modified Muzi score. Post-operative sedation was recorded by Ramsay Sedation Scale and pain was assessed by using Wong-Baker Faces pain scale.

Results: Out of 130 patients, ProSeal laryngeal mask airway was inserted in a second attempt in only 5 patients of midazolam group. Time taken for insertion was significantly higher among the midazolam group (21 seconds) than the dexmedetomidine group (19 seconds). A total of 93.8% of patients administered dexmedetomidine had excellent Muzi scores in comparison to midazolam group where only 13.8% patients had excellent Muzi scores (P < .001).

Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine in a dose of 1 μg kg-1 as compared to midazolam (20 μg kg-1) produces better insertion characteristics for ProSeal laryngeal mask airway when used as adjuvant with propofol in terms of jaw opening, ease of insertion, coughing, gagging, patient movement, and laryngospasm.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
右美托咪定与咪达唑仑辅助异丙酚用于儿童ProSeal喉罩气道插管的比较。
目的:为了使ProSeal喉罩气道顺利插入,需要更高剂量的异丙酚。理想的辅助药物,以尽量减少诱导剂量的异丙酚仍然是未知的。右美托咪定和咪达唑仑对儿童用药前同样有效。我们设计了这项研究来比较右美托咪定和咪达唑仑作为辅助剂与异丙酚对ProSeal喉罩气道插入特性的影响。方法:将130例择期手术患儿随机分为两组,每组65例。一组用异丙酚、芬太尼和咪达唑仑诱导,另一组用异丙酚、芬太尼和右美托咪定诱导。随后,采用改良木子评分法记录了ProSeal喉罩气道的插入次数和插入特征。采用Ramsay镇静量表记录术后镇静情况,采用Wong-Baker Faces疼痛量表评估术后疼痛。结果:在130例患者中,咪达唑仑组仅5例患者第二次插入ProSeal喉罩气道。插入时间在咪达唑仑组(21秒)明显高于右美托咪定组(19秒)。右美托咪定组的Muzi评分优良率为93.8%,而咪达唑仑组的Muzi评分优良率为13.8% (P < 0.001)。结论:右美托咪定1 μg kg-1与咪达唑仑(20 μg kg-1)配合异丙酚用于ProSeal喉面罩气道时,在开口、易于插入、咳嗽、呕吐、患者运动、喉痉挛等方面均优于咪达唑仑(20 μg kg-1)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Cesarean Sections Under Spinal Anaesthesia: Comparison of Varying Doses of Dexmedetomidine Combined with 0.75% Hyperbaric Ropivacaine: A Double-Blind Randomized Trial. Comparative Efficacy of Intraoperative Patient State Index vs. Bi-Spectral Index in Patients Undergoing Elective Spine Surgery with Neuromonitoring Under General Anaesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Comparison of Tracheal Intubation Using the Air-Q ILA and LMA Blockbuster Among Adults Undergoing Elective Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Evaluation of Operating Room Staff Awareness of Environmental Sustainability and Medical Waste Management. Exploring Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback as a Nonpharmacological Intervention for Enhancing Perioperative Care: A Narrative Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1