Lidocaine versus Dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to General Anesthesia for patients undergoing Elective Abdominopelvic Surgeries
Background: The fundamental impact of dexmedetomidine on the cardiovascular framework obstruction is the extra component of narcotic saving impact. Similarly, fundamental Lidocaine that is utilized as a consistent mixture during the operation period has pain-relieving, antihyperalgesic, and calming...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Al-Azhar University, Faculty of Medicine (Damietta)
2020
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/c7cf5909a3a94afdbd94779681edc5c7 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Background: The fundamental impact of dexmedetomidine on the cardiovascular framework obstruction is the extra component of narcotic saving impact. Similarly, fundamental Lidocaine that is utilized as a consistent mixture during the operation period has pain-relieving, antihyperalgesic, and calming chattels. Aim of the work: To analyze the effectiveness of lidocaine given intravenously with that of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to general anesthesia for candidates listed for elective abdominal and pelvic surgery. Patients and Methods:120 patients of both sexes undergoing elective pelviabdominal procedures were enlisted. Patients were assigned randomly to one of three equal groups: group 1 received a loading lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg, followed by an infusion of 2 mg/kg/h, group 2 received a loading dexmedetomidine1 μg/kg, followed by 0.5 μg/kg/h, and group 3 received normal saline 0.9% in the same design as previous medicines. Hemodynamics, consumption of anesthetic agents, induction and recovery times, and time to the first postoperative analgesic request were reported. Results: The hemodynamics after intubation and in the next records, were significantly lower in groups 1 and 2 when compared with group 3 with no significant variance between groups 2 and 1. The induction dosage of propofol, mean end-tidal sevoflurane concentration and the consumption of fentanyl intraoperatively were significantly lower in group 2 when compared with group 1. The time through anesthesia induction was significantly lower in group 1 and 2 when compared with group 3. The time to the first analgesic demand postoperatively was significantly longer in group 2 when compared with group 1. Conclusion: Both lidocaine and dexmedetomidine could be a beneficial adjuvant to general anesthesia. Though, dexmedetomidine has a much economic effect on intraoperative anesthetic agent consumption and more extended time to the first postoperative analgesic request. |
|---|