Author/Authors :
OKASHA, HODA H. Cairo University - Faculty of Medicine - Department of Anesthesia, Surgical Intensive Care and Pain Management, Egypt , HAMD, WAFAA S. Cairo University - Faculty of Medicine - Department of Anesthesia, Surgical Intensive Care and Pain Management, Egypt , OBAYA, GEHAN M. Cairo University - Faculty of Medicine - Department of Anesthesia, Surgical Intensive Care and Pain Management, Egypt , SALAMA, ATEF K. Cairo University - Faculty of Medicine - Department of Anesthesia, Surgical Intensive Care and Pain Management, Egypt , MOHAMAD, MAYADA K. Cairo University - Faculty of Medicine - Department of Anesthesia, Surgical Intensive Care and Pain Management, Egypt
Abstract :
Background and Aim: Vitreo-retinal surgeriesare preferred to be done under regional anesthesia with sedation which can be provided by many drugs with a relative risk of oversedation and disorientation, confusion or increased risk of respiratory depression. The aim of this study is to compare between dexmedetomidine and propofol as regard efficacy in achieving satisfactory level of sedation without hazards.Subjects and Methods: 50 patients were received peribulbar block and randomely allocated to receive either dexme-detomidine (Group D, n=25) or propofol (Group P, n=25).Results: The mean time to achieve RSS 3 was significantly longer in Group D (5.95±0.32) minutes than Group P (2.63± 0.37) minutes (p-value=0.004), themean intra-ocular pressure was significantly lower in Group D (Before 20.8±2.3 after 15±2.4) cm H2O than Group P (Before 23.3±6.1 after 21.8±6.2) cm H2O (p-value 0.001), the median pain score was significantly lower in Group D than Group P during the first 6 hours postoperative.Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine appears to provide more cardiovascular stability, more significant reduction of intraocular pressure, better patient and surgeon satisfaction and less adverse events. Using dexmedetomidine there was a slightly longer duration in achieving RSS3 than propofol.
