Dexmedetomidine Versus Fentanyl in Intraoperative Neuromuscular Monitoring Using A Propofol-based Total Intravenous Anaesthesia Regimen in Spine Surgeries.

IF 0.6 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Medha Bhardwaj, Vijay Mathur, Ravindra Singh Sisodia, Sunita Sharma, Akash Mishra
{"title":"Dexmedetomidine Versus Fentanyl in Intraoperative Neuromuscular Monitoring Using A Propofol-based Total Intravenous Anaesthesia Regimen in Spine Surgeries.","authors":"Medha Bhardwaj, Vijay Mathur, Ravindra Singh Sisodia, Sunita Sharma, Akash Mishra","doi":"10.4274/TJAR.2024.241670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This prospective, double-blind, randomized study aimed to compare the effects of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl on the latency and amplitude of transcranial motor evoked potentials (TcMEPs) under propofol-based total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) in spine surgery. Secondarily, intraoperative hemodynamics, total propofol consumption, recovery profile, and surgical field quality were compared.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>TcMEP amplitude and latency recordings of bilateral abductor pollicis brevis and abductor hallucis muscles posted for elective lumbar spine surgery under TcMEP monitoring randomly divided into two study groups. Throughout the surgery, TIVA was administered using intravenous propofol (100-150 μg kg<sup>-1</sup> min<sup>-1</sup>) and dexmedetomidine (0.5-0.7 μg kg<sup>-1</sup> h<sup>-1</sup>) in group D and intravenous propofol (100-150 μg kg<sup>-1</sup> min<sup>-1</sup>) and fentanyl (1 μg kg<sup>-1</sup> h<sup>-1</sup>) in group F. TcMEPs were recorded at various time points during the surgery. Immediately after extubation recovery from anaesthesia was noted. Additionally, hemodynamic parameters, total propofol consumption, and surgical field quality were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Latency and amplitude were comparable between the groups. Time to extubation was significantly longer in group D, but the mean (standard deviation) duration of stay in recovery was shorter in group D [47.55 (7.51) 95% confidence interval (CI) (44.863-50.237)] (<i>P</i>=0.046). Total propofol consumption was reduced in group D [220 (38) 95% CI (206.402-233.598)] (<i>P</i>=0.025) and surgical field condition was better in group D.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dexmedetomidine and fentanyl do not have any effect on TcMEP amplitude and latency. However, dexmedetomidine provides the additional advantage of reduced total propofol consumption, shorter stay in recovery, and better surgical field quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":23353,"journal":{"name":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","volume":"52 5","pages":"180-187"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/TJAR.2024.241670","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This prospective, double-blind, randomized study aimed to compare the effects of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl on the latency and amplitude of transcranial motor evoked potentials (TcMEPs) under propofol-based total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) in spine surgery. Secondarily, intraoperative hemodynamics, total propofol consumption, recovery profile, and surgical field quality were compared.

Methods: TcMEP amplitude and latency recordings of bilateral abductor pollicis brevis and abductor hallucis muscles posted for elective lumbar spine surgery under TcMEP monitoring randomly divided into two study groups. Throughout the surgery, TIVA was administered using intravenous propofol (100-150 μg kg-1 min-1) and dexmedetomidine (0.5-0.7 μg kg-1 h-1) in group D and intravenous propofol (100-150 μg kg-1 min-1) and fentanyl (1 μg kg-1 h-1) in group F. TcMEPs were recorded at various time points during the surgery. Immediately after extubation recovery from anaesthesia was noted. Additionally, hemodynamic parameters, total propofol consumption, and surgical field quality were assessed.

Results: Latency and amplitude were comparable between the groups. Time to extubation was significantly longer in group D, but the mean (standard deviation) duration of stay in recovery was shorter in group D [47.55 (7.51) 95% confidence interval (CI) (44.863-50.237)] (P=0.046). Total propofol consumption was reduced in group D [220 (38) 95% CI (206.402-233.598)] (P=0.025) and surgical field condition was better in group D.

Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine and fentanyl do not have any effect on TcMEP amplitude and latency. However, dexmedetomidine provides the additional advantage of reduced total propofol consumption, shorter stay in recovery, and better surgical field quality.

脊柱手术中使用基于丙泊酚的全静脉麻醉方案进行术中神经肌肉监测时右美托咪定与芬太尼的比较
研究目的这项前瞻性、双盲、随机研究旨在比较右美托咪定和芬太尼对脊柱手术中基于异丙酚的全静脉麻醉(TIVA)下经颅运动诱发电位(TcMEPs)的潜伏期和振幅的影响。此外,还对术中血流动力学、异丙酚总消耗量、恢复情况和手术视野质量进行了比较:方法:在 TcMEP 监测下,随机分为两个研究组,对择期腰椎手术中张贴的双侧股骨外展肌和拇外展肌进行 TcMEP 振幅和潜伏期记录。在整个手术过程中,D 组使用丙泊酚(100-150 μg kg-1 min-1)和右美托咪定(0.5-0.7 μg kg-1 h-1)静脉注射 TIVA,F 组使用丙泊酚(100-150 μg kg-1 min-1)和芬太尼(1 μg kg-1 h-1)静脉注射 TIVA,并在手术过程中的不同时间点记录 TcMEP。拔管后立即观察麻醉恢复情况。此外,还对血液动力学参数、异丙酚总消耗量和手术视野质量进行了评估:结果:两组的潜伏期和振幅相当。D组的拔管时间明显更长,但D组的平均(标准差)恢复期停留时间更短[47.55 (7.51) 95% 置信区间 (CI)(44.863-50.237)](P=0.046)。D组的异丙酚总用量减少[220 (38) 95% CI (206.402-233.598)](P=0.025),D组的手术视野条件更好:结论:右美托咪定和芬太尼对 TcMEP 振幅和潜伏期没有任何影响。结论:右美托咪定和芬太尼对 TcMEP 振幅和潜伏期没有影响,但右美托咪定的额外优势是减少了异丙酚的总用量,缩短了恢复期的停留时间,手术视野质量更好。
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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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