Title of article
Comparison of the Effect of Dexmedetomidine and Remifentanil on Pain Control After Spinal Surgery: A Double-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial
Author/Authors
Janatmakan ، Farahzad Department of Anesthesia - Pain Research Center - Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences , Nassajian ، Nozar Department of Anesthesia - Pain Research Center - Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences , Jarirahmadi ، Sara Department of Anesthesia - Pain Research Center - Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences , Tabatabaee ، Kamalodin Department of Anesthesia - Pain Research Center - Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences , Zafari ، Mohammad Department of Anesthesia - Golestan Hospital, Pain Research Center - Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences
From page
1
To page
7
Abstract
Background A variety of spinal surgery procedures are performed on patients with different cardiac, vascular, and respiratory comorbidities. Postoperative pain management is a major determinant of hemodynamic and respiratory status in these patients and promotes clinical results, prevents complications, saves health services, and improves the quality of life of patients. Objectives We compared the effects of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil on pain control after spinal surgery. Methods Sixty patients aged 18 - 65 years undergoing spinal surgery were randomized into the two groups of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil. The dexmedetomidine group (group D, n = 30) received dexmedetomidine infusion (0.6 mcg/kg/h), and the remifentanil group (group R, n = 30) received remifentanil infusion (0.1 mcg/kg/min) from induction of anesthesia until extubation. Propofol (1.5 mg/kg) and fentanyl (2mcg/kg) were used to initiate anesthesia, and propofol (100 - 150 mcg/kg/min) was infused to maintain anesthesia. Postoperative pain, hemodynamic parameters, and recovery characteristics were evaluated after surgery. Results The mean pain intensity in the dexmedetomidine group was significantly lower than in the remifentanil group (2.98 ± 1.29 vs. 3.80 ± 1.1; P 0.001). Hemodynamic changes in the dexmedetomidine group (MAP: 92.60 ± 5.56, HR: 73.07 ± 7) were less, and their condition was significantly more stable than in the remifentanil group (MAP: 93.85 ± 4.78, HR: 79.15 ± 7.03; P 0.05). The mean arterial oxygen saturation (O2 sat) in the dexmedetomidine group was significantly higher and more stable than in the remifentanil group (98.87 ± 0.51 vs. 97.92 ± 0.46; P 0.05). The incidence of nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group compared to the remifentanil group (P 0.05). The administration of analgesics in the post-anesthetic care unit (PACU) was significantly higher in the remifentanil group than the dexmedetomidine group (P = 0.016). Conclusions Anesthetic maintenance with either dexmedetomidine or remifentanil infusion until extubation provided more smooth and hemodynamically stable conditions, without complications. However, dexmedetomidine provides better analgesia, causes a more stable hemodynamic state, and reduces postoperative nausea-vomiting, shivering, and the need for analgesics.
Keywords
Dexmedetomidine , Pain , Remifentanil , Spinal Surgery
Journal title
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Journal title
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Record number
2762485
Link To Document