Evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl-midazolam combination on awake fiberoptic intubation in oral cancer surgery

Dr. Bhumi K Maru, Dr. Anupama Kisku, Dipika P. Patel, Dr. Tejendra Arya, Dr. Jayshree M Thakkar
{"title":"Evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl-midazolam combination on awake fiberoptic intubation in oral cancer surgery","authors":"Dr. Bhumi K Maru, Dr. Anupama Kisku, Dipika P. Patel, Dr. Tejendra Arya, Dr. Jayshree M Thakkar","doi":"10.33545/26648849.2023.v5.i1a.25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Awake beroptic intubation (AFOI) is the principal techniques in the management of difcult airway in\noral cancer surgery. The aim of study was to evaluate the efcacy of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl-midazolam\ncombination on awake beroptic intubation in oral cancer surgery. An ideal sedation regimen would ensure patient's comfort and co-ordination\nattenuation of airway reexes, hemodynamic stability and sedation. 60 patients Methods: of age group 18-60 years with American Society of\nAnaesthesiologist I and II posted for oral cancer surgery under general anaesthesia were randomly divided into two groups of 30 each in this\nprospective randomised and comparative study. Group-D (30 pt): Received an infusion of 1 µg /kg in 100ml Normal saline infusion IV over 10\nmin. Group-FM (30 pt): Received an infusion of fentanyl 2 µg /kg and midazolam 0.02mg/kg IV in 10ml of normal saline. All Patients were\nassessed for vocal cord movement, coughing, physical movement, comfort score, Ramsay sedation score, patient satisfaction score, and\nintubation time and hemodynamics variables. The demographic characteristics w Results: ere comparable in two groups (P>0.05).Group-D has\nmore incidence of vocal cord opening than Group-FM. Group-D has less cough score than group-FM. Limb movement scores were more in\ngroup-FM than group-D. Group-D were more satised than group-FM (P=0.0002). RSS Score was signicantly better in Group-D than in\nGroup-FM (P=0.041). Group-D showed signicantly reduced hemodynamic response to AFOI than group-FM. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine\nis more effective than fentanyl-midazolam during AFOI, as it provides better intubation condition, hemodynamics stability and sedation","PeriodicalId":91883,"journal":{"name":"International journal of anesthesiology & research","volume":"81 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of anesthesiology & research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33545/26648849.2023.v5.i1a.25","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: Awake beroptic intubation (AFOI) is the principal techniques in the management of difcult airway in oral cancer surgery. The aim of study was to evaluate the efcacy of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl-midazolam combination on awake beroptic intubation in oral cancer surgery. An ideal sedation regimen would ensure patient's comfort and co-ordination attenuation of airway reexes, hemodynamic stability and sedation. 60 patients Methods: of age group 18-60 years with American Society of Anaesthesiologist I and II posted for oral cancer surgery under general anaesthesia were randomly divided into two groups of 30 each in this prospective randomised and comparative study. Group-D (30 pt): Received an infusion of 1 µg /kg in 100ml Normal saline infusion IV over 10 min. Group-FM (30 pt): Received an infusion of fentanyl 2 µg /kg and midazolam 0.02mg/kg IV in 10ml of normal saline. All Patients were assessed for vocal cord movement, coughing, physical movement, comfort score, Ramsay sedation score, patient satisfaction score, and intubation time and hemodynamics variables. The demographic characteristics w Results: ere comparable in two groups (P>0.05).Group-D has more incidence of vocal cord opening than Group-FM. Group-D has less cough score than group-FM. Limb movement scores were more in group-FM than group-D. Group-D were more satised than group-FM (P=0.0002). RSS Score was signicantly better in Group-D than in Group-FM (P=0.041). Group-D showed signicantly reduced hemodynamic response to AFOI than group-FM. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine is more effective than fentanyl-midazolam during AFOI, as it provides better intubation condition, hemodynamics stability and sedation
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
评价右美托咪定联合芬太尼-咪达唑仑在口腔癌手术中清醒纤维插管的疗效
背景:清醒视神经插管(AFOI)是处理困难恶性气道口腔癌手术的主要技术。本研究的目的是评价右美托咪定联合芬太尼咪达唑对口腔癌手术中清醒视神经插管的影响。理想的镇静方案应确保患者的舒适和协调,减少气道的流量,血流动力学的稳定性和镇静。方法:选取年龄在18 ~ 60岁的美国麻醉师学会I级和II级从事口腔癌全麻手术的患者,随机分为两组,每组30例,进行前瞻性随机对照研究。d组(30例):以1µg /kg滴注于100ml生理盐水IV中,持续10min。fm组(30 pt):给予芬太尼2µg /kg、咪达唑仑0.02mg/kg IV滴注于10ml生理盐水中。评估所有患者的声带运动、咳嗽、身体运动、舒适度评分、Ramsay镇静评分、患者满意度评分、插管时间和血流动力学变量。结果:两组比较具有可比性(P>0.05)。d组声带开口发生率高于fm组。d组咳嗽评分低于fm组。肢体运动评分fm组高于d组。d组满意度高于fm组(P=0.0002)。d组的RSS评分显著高于fm组(P=0.041)。与fm组相比,d组对AFOI的血流动力学反应明显降低。结论:右美托咪定治疗AFOI的效果优于芬太尼-咪达唑仑,具有更好的插管条件、血流动力学稳定性和镇静作用
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
Scope of spinal anaesthesia extends beyond the administration of dose of hyperbaric bupivacaine Evaluation of hyperglycaemic response to anti-emetic dose of dexamethasone in diabetic patients undergoing cholecystectomy Fascia iliaca compartment block using ropivacaine 0.5% for postoperative analgesia in lowerlimb orthopaedic surgeries Effect of intravenous vs intrathecal dexmedetomidine on 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine spinal anaesthesia Role of tranexamic acid in reducing blood loss in off pump coronary artery bypass surgery: A randomized, double blind study
×
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