Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine Plus Ropivacaine 0.375% Versus Dexamethasone Plus Ropivacaine 0.375% Administered by Ultrasound-Guided Bilateral Spinal Erector Block on Post-Surgical Patients of Lumbar Spine Surgery

Joseph Alape Ariza, Andrea Pinzon Reyes, Arbey Hernan Medina Rocha, Rodrigo Cabrera Perez, Clara Isabel Bermudez Santana
{"title":"Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine Plus Ropivacaine 0.375% Versus Dexamethasone Plus Ropivacaine 0.375% Administered by Ultrasound-Guided Bilateral Spinal Erector Block on Post-Surgical Patients of Lumbar Spine Surgery","authors":"Joseph Alape Ariza, Andrea Pinzon Reyes, Arbey Hernan Medina Rocha, Rodrigo Cabrera Perez, Clara Isabel Bermudez Santana","doi":"10.20431/2455-9792.0801001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The ultrasound-guided erector spinae block is an analgesic option that has shown a positive response in postoperative pain control in spinal surgery. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine plus 0.375% ropivacaine compared with dexamethasone plus 0.375% ropivacaine administered in the ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spinae plane in the management of postoperative pain in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery at Hospital Civil de Guadalajara. Material and Methods: Fourteen patients scheduled for lumbar spine surgery were included, divided into two groups. Group A received dexmedetomidine plus ropivacaine bilaterally in the plane of the spinal erector guided by ultrasound, while group B received ropivacaine plus Bilateral dexamethasone using the same technique. Results: Post-surgical pain in group A and group B presented an average baseline pain of 3.88 ± 0.84 and 5.17 ± 1.17 on VAS, respectively. At 8 hours, an average value of 3.13 ± 1.64 and 2 ± 1.55 on VAS, at 24 hours. hours was 2.13 ± 0.84 and 2.33 ± 1.03 VAS and at 48 hours it was 1.88 ± 0.641 and 2.33 ± 1.37 VAS. Conclusions: The administration of dexamethasone generates a more effective analgesia at 8 postoperative hours compared to dexmedetomidine in our group. The spinal erector plane block is a good alternative for postsurgical pain, demonstrating efficacy and safety in patients scheduled for lumbar spine surgery. Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine Plus Ropivacaine 0.375% Versus Dexamethasone Plus Ropivacaine 0.375% Administered by Ultrasound-Guided Bilateral Spinal Erector Block on Post-Surgical Patients of Lumbar","PeriodicalId":275441,"journal":{"name":"ARC Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ARC Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20431/2455-9792.0801001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The ultrasound-guided erector spinae block is an analgesic option that has shown a positive response in postoperative pain control in spinal surgery. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine plus 0.375% ropivacaine compared with dexamethasone plus 0.375% ropivacaine administered in the ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spinae plane in the management of postoperative pain in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery at Hospital Civil de Guadalajara. Material and Methods: Fourteen patients scheduled for lumbar spine surgery were included, divided into two groups. Group A received dexmedetomidine plus ropivacaine bilaterally in the plane of the spinal erector guided by ultrasound, while group B received ropivacaine plus Bilateral dexamethasone using the same technique. Results: Post-surgical pain in group A and group B presented an average baseline pain of 3.88 ± 0.84 and 5.17 ± 1.17 on VAS, respectively. At 8 hours, an average value of 3.13 ± 1.64 and 2 ± 1.55 on VAS, at 24 hours. hours was 2.13 ± 0.84 and 2.33 ± 1.03 VAS and at 48 hours it was 1.88 ± 0.641 and 2.33 ± 1.37 VAS. Conclusions: The administration of dexamethasone generates a more effective analgesia at 8 postoperative hours compared to dexmedetomidine in our group. The spinal erector plane block is a good alternative for postsurgical pain, demonstrating efficacy and safety in patients scheduled for lumbar spine surgery. Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine Plus Ropivacaine 0.375% Versus Dexamethasone Plus Ropivacaine 0.375% Administered by Ultrasound-Guided Bilateral Spinal Erector Block on Post-Surgical Patients of Lumbar
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
右美托咪定加罗哌卡因0.375%与超声引导双侧脊柱竖立器阻滞给药地塞米松加罗哌卡因0.375%对腰椎术后患者的疗效比较
超声引导下的直立脊柱阻滞是一种镇痛选择,在脊柱手术术后疼痛控制中显示出积极的反应。目的:评价右美托咪定加0.375%罗哌卡因与地塞米松加0.375%罗哌卡因在超声引导下双侧竖脊平面下治疗瓜达拉哈拉民用医院腰椎手术患者术后疼痛的疗效。材料与方法:选取拟行腰椎手术的患者14例,分为两组。A组在超声引导下在脊柱竖肌平面双侧给予右美托咪定加罗哌卡因,B组采用相同的方法给予罗哌卡因加双侧地塞米松。结果:A组和B组术后疼痛平均基线VAS评分分别为3.88±0.84和5.17±1.17。8 h时VAS平均值为3.13±1.64,24 h时VAS平均值为2±1.55。h时分别为2.13±0.84和2.33±1.03 VAS, 48 h时分别为1.88±0.641和2.33±1.37 VAS。结论:本组患者术后8小时应用地塞米松镇痛效果优于右美托咪定。脊柱竖肌平面阻滞是治疗术后疼痛的一个很好的选择,在腰椎手术患者中证明了其有效性和安全性。右美托咪定加罗哌卡因0.375%与超声引导双侧脊柱竖立器阻滞地塞米松加罗哌卡因0.375%对腰椎术后患者的疗效比较
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Choropleth Map Legend Design for Visualizing the Most Influential Areas on the Topic of Anesthesiology: Bibliometric Analyses Post Traumatic Fat Embolism Syndrome: A Case Report Safety and Efficacy of Prgabalin as a Part of Multimodal Analgesia in Patients with Lumbar Spine Disk Surgery Updates in Knee Joint Osteoarthritis Updates in Gastro-Intestinal Cancer Related Malnutrition
×
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