Analgesic effect of intravenous versus intraperitoneal dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to intraperitoneal bupivacaine (0.125%) in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized, double blind, interventional study

P. Jain, Pratibha Rathore, Harimohan Sharma, Shailja Bamniya
{"title":"Analgesic effect of intravenous versus intraperitoneal dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to intraperitoneal bupivacaine (0.125%) in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized, double blind, interventional study","authors":"P. Jain, Pratibha Rathore, Harimohan Sharma, Shailja Bamniya","doi":"10.18231/j.joapr.2022.10.3.12.17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Aims: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has emerged as a gold standard technique for gall bladder stones. The aim of the present study was to compare the analgesic effect of intravenous (IV) vs intraperitoneal (IP) dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to intraperitoneal (IP) bupivacaine in laparoscopy. Methods: A prospective, randomized, double blind, interventional study was conducted on 100 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy where they were divided into following 2 groups: Group A: Patients received IV 1µg/kg dexmedetomidine diluted to 30 ml with normal saline over 10 min and 40 ml of 0.125% bupivacaine IP after removal of gall bladder. Group B: Patients received IV 30 ml of normal saline and 1µg/kg IP dexmedetomidine in 40 ml of 0.125% IP bupivacaine after removal of gall bladder. The primacy outcome was noted as a difference in mean duration for need of first rescue analgesia. The total consumption of analgesic in first 24hours was recorded and compared between the two groups. Results: Both the groups were comparable in terms of demographic profile and intraoperative hemodynamic parameters with no statistical difference. Comparison of time to first analgesic requirement between the two groups showed statistically significant results with unpaired t test The time of first rescue analgesia in Group A was 151.80 min ± 76.624. and in Group B was 94.80min ± 21.499. The total analgesic requirement in 24 hours in Group A was 136.64 ± 31.251 and in Group B was 144.12 ± 21.49. Conclusion: In our study we concluded that intravenous dexmetomidine provided superior analgesia as compared to intraperitoneal dexmetomidine when used as an adjuvant with Bupivacaine intraperitoneally.\n","PeriodicalId":15232,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Research","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18231/j.joapr.2022.10.3.12.17","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

Background and Aims: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has emerged as a gold standard technique for gall bladder stones. The aim of the present study was to compare the analgesic effect of intravenous (IV) vs intraperitoneal (IP) dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to intraperitoneal (IP) bupivacaine in laparoscopy. Methods: A prospective, randomized, double blind, interventional study was conducted on 100 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy where they were divided into following 2 groups: Group A: Patients received IV 1µg/kg dexmedetomidine diluted to 30 ml with normal saline over 10 min and 40 ml of 0.125% bupivacaine IP after removal of gall bladder. Group B: Patients received IV 30 ml of normal saline and 1µg/kg IP dexmedetomidine in 40 ml of 0.125% IP bupivacaine after removal of gall bladder. The primacy outcome was noted as a difference in mean duration for need of first rescue analgesia. The total consumption of analgesic in first 24hours was recorded and compared between the two groups. Results: Both the groups were comparable in terms of demographic profile and intraoperative hemodynamic parameters with no statistical difference. Comparison of time to first analgesic requirement between the two groups showed statistically significant results with unpaired t test The time of first rescue analgesia in Group A was 151.80 min ± 76.624. and in Group B was 94.80min ± 21.499. The total analgesic requirement in 24 hours in Group A was 136.64 ± 31.251 and in Group B was 144.12 ± 21.49. Conclusion: In our study we concluded that intravenous dexmetomidine provided superior analgesia as compared to intraperitoneal dexmetomidine when used as an adjuvant with Bupivacaine intraperitoneally.
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
右美托咪定辅助布比卡因腹腔注射(0.125%)在腹腔镜胆囊切除术中的镇痛效果:一项随机、双盲、介入性研究
背景和目的:腹腔镜胆囊切除术已成为治疗胆囊结石的金标准技术。本研究的目的是比较静脉注射(IV)和腹腔注射(IP)右美托咪定作为腹腔镜下腹腔注射(IP)布比卡因的辅助剂的镇痛效果。方法:对100例腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者进行前瞻性、随机、双盲、介入性研究,分为两组:A组:患者在胆囊切除术后静脉滴注右美托咪定1µg/kg,用生理盐水稀释至30 ml, 10 min后静脉滴注0.125%布比卡因IP 40 ml。B组:患者切除胆囊后,静脉滴注生理盐水30 ml,右美托咪定1µg/kg IP加入0.125% IP布比卡因40 ml中。主要结果是需要首次抢救镇痛的平均持续时间的差异。记录两组患者用药前24h镇痛药总用量并进行比较。结果:两组在人口学特征和术中血流动力学参数方面具有可比性,无统计学差异。A组患者首次抢救镇痛时间为151.80 min±76.624 min,两组患者首次抢救镇痛时间差异有统计学意义。B组为94.80min±21.499 min。A组24h总镇痛需求为136.64±31.251,B组24h总镇痛需求为144.12±21.49。结论:在我们的研究中,我们得出结论,静脉注射右美托咪定与布比卡因腹腔注射时,相比于腹腔注射右美托咪定提供了更好的镇痛效果。
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
Comparative study of bone mineral density, phenotypes of emphysema in patients with or without established diagnosis of chronic airway disease Knowledge, attitudes and practices of Materiovigilance among physicians in a rural tertiary care teaching hospital in Puducherry- a cross sectional study Evaluation of toxicity studies of Sesbania grandiflora leaves extracts in Wistar albino rats Clinical investigations to calculate nuchal translucency using F-LNET A cross-sectional study to assess the barriers to teleconsultations among doctors in Chennai
×
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