Dexmedetomidine and clonidine as adjuvants to ropivacaine in adductor canal block for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study

Gajanan Fultambkar, Shirisha Kasetty, B. Vijayanand, Abhijit S. Nair
{"title":"Dexmedetomidine and clonidine as adjuvants to ropivacaine in adductor canal block for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study","authors":"Gajanan Fultambkar, Shirisha Kasetty, B. Vijayanand, Abhijit S. Nair","doi":"10.4103/bjoa.bjoa_88_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Patients undergoing arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction experience significant postoperative pain, which could lead to a delay in recovery and discharge from an ambulatory surgical setting. Adductor canal block (ACB) has been used to offer effective postoperative analgesia after ACL repair. We compared the analgesic efficacy of alpha-2 agonists clonidine and dexmedetomidine as adjuvants to local anesthetics in ACB. Patients and Methods: Sixty subjects scheduled for elective arthroscopic ACL reconstruction were randomized into two groups of 30 patients each. Group 1 patients received US-guided ACB with 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine with 1 μg/kg clonidine as an adjuvant; group 2 patients received ACB with 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine with 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant. Demographic data, pain scores, motor and sensory block, postoperative tramadol consumption, time to rescue analgesia, and adverse events were compared. Results: The demographic data were comparable between both groups. The patients in group 2 when compared with group 1 had increased time for request to rescue analgesic (488.83 ± 67.934 min compared with 975.07 ± 90.251 min, P < 0.001), reduced tramadol consumption (179.33 ± 44.095 mg compared with 179.33 ± 44.095 mg, P < 0.001), and better pain scores at 12 and 18 h. Postoperative nausea and vomiting was less in group 2 compared with group 1. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine, when added as an adjuvant to 0.5% ropivacaine in ACB, leads to increased time to first request of tramadol, reduced postoperative tramadol requirement, and decreased NRS scores when compared with clonidine.","PeriodicalId":8691,"journal":{"name":"Bali Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bali Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/bjoa.bjoa_88_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients undergoing arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction experience significant postoperative pain, which could lead to a delay in recovery and discharge from an ambulatory surgical setting. Adductor canal block (ACB) has been used to offer effective postoperative analgesia after ACL repair. We compared the analgesic efficacy of alpha-2 agonists clonidine and dexmedetomidine as adjuvants to local anesthetics in ACB. Patients and Methods: Sixty subjects scheduled for elective arthroscopic ACL reconstruction were randomized into two groups of 30 patients each. Group 1 patients received US-guided ACB with 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine with 1 μg/kg clonidine as an adjuvant; group 2 patients received ACB with 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine with 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant. Demographic data, pain scores, motor and sensory block, postoperative tramadol consumption, time to rescue analgesia, and adverse events were compared. Results: The demographic data were comparable between both groups. The patients in group 2 when compared with group 1 had increased time for request to rescue analgesic (488.83 ± 67.934 min compared with 975.07 ± 90.251 min, P < 0.001), reduced tramadol consumption (179.33 ± 44.095 mg compared with 179.33 ± 44.095 mg, P < 0.001), and better pain scores at 12 and 18 h. Postoperative nausea and vomiting was less in group 2 compared with group 1. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine, when added as an adjuvant to 0.5% ropivacaine in ACB, leads to increased time to first request of tramadol, reduced postoperative tramadol requirement, and decreased NRS scores when compared with clonidine.
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
右美托咪定和可乐定作为罗哌卡因内收肌管阻滞辅助关节镜下前交叉韧带重建患者术后镇痛的前瞻性、随机、双盲研究
背景:接受关节镜下前交叉韧带(ACL)重建的患者会经历严重的术后疼痛,这可能导致康复和出院延迟。外泌管阻滞(ACB)已被用于ACL修复后提供有效的术后镇痛。我们比较了α-2激动剂可乐定和右美托咪定作为ACB局部麻醉剂佐剂的镇痛效果。患者和方法:60名计划进行选择性关节镜下ACL重建的受试者被随机分为两组,每组30名患者。第1组患者接受了US引导的ACB,其中20例 mL 0.5%罗哌卡因和1μg/kg可乐定作为佐剂;第2组患者接受ACB mL 0.5%罗哌卡因和1μg/kg右美托咪定作为佐剂。比较人口统计学数据、疼痛评分、运动和感觉阻滞、术后曲马多用量、镇痛时间和不良事件。结果:两组的人口统计数据具有可比性。与第1组相比,第2组患者请求抢救镇痛药的时间增加(488.83±67.934 min,相比之下为975.07±90.251 min,P<0.001),曲马多消耗量减少(179.33±44.095 mg,而179.33±44.095 mg,P<0.001),并且在12岁和18岁时疼痛评分更好 h.与第1组相比,第2组的术后恶心和呕吐较少。结论:与可乐定相比,在0.5%罗哌卡因的ACB中加入右美托咪定作为佐剂,可延长首次使用曲马多的时间,降低术后对曲马多需求,并降低NRS评分。
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
Bali Journal of Anesthesiology
Bali Journal of Anesthesiology Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Selective Critically ill patients with tracheostomy are eligible for direct from intensive care unit sent home: Case series Comment on: Effects of different anesthetic techniques on neutrophil lymphocyte ratio and monocyte lymphocyte ratio in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery: A prospective, single-blind, randomized study Low procalcitonin clearance correlates with mortality treated with culture-matched antibiotics in intensive care unit: A retrospective, observational study Phenylephrine, ondansetron, or combination of both for prevention of intraoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing lower segment cesarean section: A prospective, double-blind randomized control trial Artificial intelligence in anesthesia and critical care (part 1): Current perspective in critical care setting
×
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