Comparative study between dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone as an adjuvant to levobupivacaine for supraclavicular brachial plexus block in patients undergoing upper limb surgeries

Authors

  • Suman Sarkar Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Bankura Sammilani Medical College and Hospital, Bankura, West Bengal, India
  • Debarati Goswami Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Bankura Sammilani Medical College and Hospital, Bankura, West Bengal, India https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6882-5338
  • Sujan Sarkar Medical Officer (Specialist), Department of Anaesthesiology, Birpara S.G. Hospital, Alipurduar, West Bengal, India
  • Sandesh Rathod Postgraduate Trainee, Department of Anaesthesiology, Bankura Sammilani Medical College and Hospital, Bankura, West Bengal, India https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3804-821X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3126/ajms.v14i12.56262

Keywords:

Levobupivacaine; Dexmedetomidine; Dexamethasone; Supraclavicular brachial plexus block; Peripheral nerve stimulator

Abstract

Background: Brachial plexus block (BPB) is widely used nowadays in patients undergoing upper limb surgery. Levobupivacaine is one of the best local anesthetics in the current scenario in this field. Both dexmedetomidine (DM) and dexamethasone (DX) are commonly used local anesthetic adjuvants in BPB to enhance blocking effects. In anesthesiology, there is always a search for a better alternative.

Aims and Objectives: In this study, we investigated the effect of DM and DX as adjuvants to levobupivacaine on the quality of supraclavicular BPB.

Materials and Methods: A prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled intervention study (superiority trial) was done involving 60 patients aged 20–60 years, randomly allocated into two equal groups (group S-DM group-Patients were received Injection 0.25% Levobupivacaine 2 mg/kg body weight+Inj. DM 1 mcg/kg body weight+distilled water [total volume 30 mL] and group C-DX group-Patients received Inj. 0.25% Levobupivacaine 2 mg/kg+Inj. DX 0.1 mg/kg body weight+Distilled water [total volume 30 mL]). The scores of the modified Gormley and Hill scale and the modified Bromage scale were recorded along with hemodynamic parameters. Pearson’s Chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U-test, one-way ANOVA, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, and Z-test were used for statistical analysis.

Results: The onset of motor block was shorter in group-S patients (14.2667±1.0807 [min]) compared to group-C (15.9333±1.5742 [min]), and the duration of motor block was higher in group-S (708.5667±4.2644 [min]) compared to group-C patients (682.3667±20.0095 [min]) (P<0.001).

Conclusion: DM is a better alternative to DX when added to levobupivacaine for decreasing the onset of sensory and motor block and increasing the duration of supraclavicular BPB.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract
87
PDF
90

Downloads

Published

2023-12-01

How to Cite

Suman Sarkar, Debarati Goswami, Sujan Sarkar, & Sandesh Rathod. (2023). Comparative study between dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone as an adjuvant to levobupivacaine for supraclavicular brachial plexus block in patients undergoing upper limb surgeries. Asian Journal of Medical Sciences, 14(12), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.3126/ajms.v14i12.56262

Issue

Vol. 14 No. 12 (2023)

Section

Original Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Asian Journal of Medical Sciences

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The journal holds copyright and publishes the work under a Creative Commons CC-BY-NC license that permits use, distribution and reprduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. The journal should be recognised as the original publisher of this work.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).