Propofol Versus Dexmedetomidine for Conscious Sedation During Vaginal Hysterectomy With Pre-emptive Local Anesthesia: A Prospective Cohort Study.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
In vivo Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.21873/invivo.13711
Sofia Hadzilia, Themos Grigoriadis, Anastasia Prodromidou, Emmanouil Stamatakis, Dimitra Papadopoulou, Dimitrios Zacharakis, Stavros Athanasiou, Dimitrios Valsamidis
{"title":"Propofol <i>Versus</i> Dexmedetomidine for Conscious Sedation During Vaginal Hysterectomy With Pre-emptive Local Anesthesia: A Prospective Cohort Study.","authors":"Sofia Hadzilia, Themos Grigoriadis, Anastasia Prodromidou, Emmanouil Stamatakis, Dimitra Papadopoulou, Dimitrios Zacharakis, Stavros Athanasiou, Dimitrios Valsamidis","doi":"10.21873/invivo.13711","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aim: </strong>Hysterectomy is the most frequent gynecological surgery. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) seems to be related to favorable perioperative outcomes compared to abdominal or laparoscopic approaches. As the population ages, anesthesia that is safer for the elderly, such as local anesthesia (LA) with conscious sedation, is gaining popularity and is related to favorable outcomes in patients' recovery compared to general or regional anesthesia. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for women undergoing VH for uterine prolapse under LA and conscious sedation.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A prospective study on 40 women with uterine prolapse stage ≥3 who had VH under LA with conscious sedation under either dexmedetomidine (n=20) or propofol (n=20) was performed. A standardized surgical approach with continuous hemodynamic monitoring and sedation assessment using the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) was conducted. The primary endpoint of the study was to determine the percentage of patients receiving intraoperative fentanyl.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis of outcomes demonstrated a significant reduction in the proportion of patients requiring intraoperative rescue fentanyl (35% vs. 5%, respectively, p=0.04) and in postoperative pain scores, with more patients achieving an optimal RSS score of 3 in the dexmedetomidine group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on the findings of the present study, dexmedetomidine offered superior analgesia and patient comfort compared to propofol, suggesting a favorable anesthetic profile for VH under LA.</p>","PeriodicalId":13364,"journal":{"name":"In vivo","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11363776/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"In vivo","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.13711","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/aim: Hysterectomy is the most frequent gynecological surgery. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) seems to be related to favorable perioperative outcomes compared to abdominal or laparoscopic approaches. As the population ages, anesthesia that is safer for the elderly, such as local anesthesia (LA) with conscious sedation, is gaining popularity and is related to favorable outcomes in patients' recovery compared to general or regional anesthesia. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for women undergoing VH for uterine prolapse under LA and conscious sedation.

Patients and methods: A prospective study on 40 women with uterine prolapse stage ≥3 who had VH under LA with conscious sedation under either dexmedetomidine (n=20) or propofol (n=20) was performed. A standardized surgical approach with continuous hemodynamic monitoring and sedation assessment using the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) was conducted. The primary endpoint of the study was to determine the percentage of patients receiving intraoperative fentanyl.

Results: Analysis of outcomes demonstrated a significant reduction in the proportion of patients requiring intraoperative rescue fentanyl (35% vs. 5%, respectively, p=0.04) and in postoperative pain scores, with more patients achieving an optimal RSS score of 3 in the dexmedetomidine group.

Conclusion: Based on the findings of the present study, dexmedetomidine offered superior analgesia and patient comfort compared to propofol, suggesting a favorable anesthetic profile for VH under LA.

在阴道子宫切除术中使用丙泊酚与右美托咪定进行意识镇静,并预先进行局部麻醉:一项前瞻性队列研究。
背景/目的:子宫切除术是最常见的妇科手术。与腹腔镜或腹腔镜方法相比,阴道子宫切除术(VH)似乎具有良好的围手术期效果。随着人口老龄化,对老年人更安全的麻醉方式,如意识镇静的局部麻醉(LA)越来越受欢迎,与全身麻醉或区域麻醉相比,这种麻醉方式对患者的恢复更有利。我们的目的是评估右美托咪定与异丙酚对在LA和有意识镇静下接受子宫脱垂VH手术的妇女的疗效:对40名子宫脱垂≥3期的妇女进行了前瞻性研究,这些妇女在LA和意识镇静下,在右美托咪定(20人)或异丙酚(20人)的作用下进行了VH手术。采用标准化手术方法,持续监测血流动力学,并使用拉姆塞镇静量表(RSS)进行镇静评估。研究的主要终点是确定术中使用芬太尼的患者比例:结果分析表明,需要术中芬太尼抢救的患者比例显著降低(分别为35%和5%,P=0.04),术后疼痛评分也显著降低,右美托咪定组有更多患者的最佳RSS评分达到3分:根据本研究的结果,右美托咪定的镇痛效果和患者舒适度优于丙泊酚,这表明在LA下进行VH手术具有良好的麻醉效果。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
In vivo
In vivo 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
330
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: IN VIVO is an international peer-reviewed journal designed to bring together original high quality works and reviews on experimental and clinical biomedical research within the frames of physiology, pathology and disease management. The topics of IN VIVO include: 1. Experimental development and application of new diagnostic and therapeutic procedures; 2. Pharmacological and toxicological evaluation of new drugs, drug combinations and drug delivery systems; 3. Clinical trials; 4. Development and characterization of models of biomedical research; 5. Cancer diagnosis and treatment; 6. Immunotherapy and vaccines; 7. Radiotherapy, Imaging; 8. Tissue engineering, Regenerative medicine; 9. Carcinogenesis.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信