Does Treatment with Dexmedetomidine Intra-articularly Improve Postoperative Pain and Rehabilitation after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction?

This study aims to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of dexmedetomidine added to levobupivacaine following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery. Fifty patients undergoing ACL reconstruction were included. Group DL (dexmedetomidin-levobupivacaine) received 20mL 0.5% levobupivacaine plus 1mL (100 mu g) dexmedetomidine. Group L (levobupivacaine) patients received 20mL 0.5% levobupivacaine plus 1mL saline 10minutes before tourniquet release. A patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump was then connected, delivering 0.5mg at every 10minutes and 1-mg morphine and 75-mg diclofenac sodium was used as a rescue analgesic. Postoperative pain was evaluated 0, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24hours after extubation at rest and during movement. A rehabilitation program was started after surgery. Postoperative continuous passive motion (CPM) starting time, postoperative leg flexion angle, and straight leg lifting time were evaluated for each group. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of demographic data and operation time. Morphine consumption, analgesic requirements, and visual analogue scale (VAS) assessments were significantly lower in group DL during the 24-hour period after surgery. The time to start CPM in the postoperative period was significantly shorter in group DL. Passive joint flexion angle was significantly higher in group DL. Postoperative straight leg lifting time was significantly shorter in group DL. Adding dexmedetomidine to the intra-articular levobupivacaine provided better postoperative pain control and improved rehabilitation period after ACL surgery

Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam for premedication of pediatric patients undergoing anesthesia

Background: Dexmedetomidine, an a2-receptor agonist, provides sedation, analgesia, and anxiolytic effects, and these properties make it a potentially useful anesthetic premedication. In this study, we compared the effects of intranasal dexmedetomidine and midazolam on mask induction and preoperative sedation in pediatric patients. Methods: Ninety children classified as ASA physical status I, aged between 2 and 9, who were scheduled to undergo an elective adenotonsillectomy, were enrolled for a prospective, randomized, and double-blind controlled trial. All of the children received intranasal medication approximately 4560 min before the induction of anesthesia. Group M (n = 45) received 0.2 mg center dot kg-1 of intranasal midazolam, and Group D (n = 45) received 1 mu g center dot kg-1 of intranasal dexmedetomidine. All of the patients were anesthetized with nitrous oxide, oxygen, and sevoflurane, administered via a face mask. The primary end point was satisfactory mask induction, and the secondary end points included satisfactory sedation upon separation from parents, hemodynamic change, postoperative analgesia, and agitation score at emergence. Results: Satisfactory mask induction was achieved by 82.2% of Group M and 60% of Group D (P = 0.01). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in either sedation score (P = 0.36) or anxiety score (P = 0.56) upon separation from parents. The number of patients who required postoperative analgesia was higher in the midazolam group (P = 0.045). Conclusion: Intranasal dexmedetomidine and midazolam are equally effective in decreasing anxiety upon separation from parents; however, midazolam is superior in providing satisfactory conditions during mask induction

Is the Addition of Dexmedetomidine to a Ketamine-Propofol Combination in Pediatric Cardiac Catheterization Sedation Useful?

Pediatric patients undergoing cardiac catheterization usually need deep sedation. In this study, 60 children were randomly allocated to receive sedation with either a ketamine-propofol combination (KP group, n = 30) or a ketamine-propofol-dexmedetomidine combination (KPD group, n = 30). Both groups received 1 mg/kg of ketamine and 1 mg/kg of propofol for induction of sedation, and the KPD group received an additional 1 mu g/kg of dexmedetomidine infusion during 5 min for induction of sedation and a maintenance infusion of 0.5 mu g/kg/h. In both groups, 0.2 mg/kg of propofol was administered as a bolus to maintain a Ramsey sedation score (RSS) greater than 4 throughout the procedure. None of the patients in either group required intubation. In the KP group, one patient required mask ventilation. The chin-lift maneuver needed to be performed for eight patients in the KP group and one patient in the KPD group (p 0.05). The mean recovery time was longer in the KP group (5.86 vs 3.13 min; p < 0.05). Adding dexmedetomidine to a ketamine-propofol combination led to a reduced need for airway intervention and to decreased movement during local anesthetic infiltration and throughout the procedure. The recovery time was shorter and hemodynamic stability good in the KPD group