Open Access


Read more
image01

Online Manuscript Submission


Read more
image01

Submitted Manuscript Trail


Read more
image01

Online Payment


Read more
image01

Online Subscription


Read more
image01

Email Alert



Read more
image01

Original Research Article | OPEN ACCESS

Analgesic and safety analysis of dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine in ultrasound-guided brachial plexus nerve block

Jiayu Lu, Taihao Cui, Zhaoxiang Yu, Wei Zheng, Wei He

Department of Anesthesiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Beihua University, Jilin City, Jilin Province 132000, China;

For correspondence:-  Wei He   Email: whe2488@163.com   Tel:+8615604329177

Accepted: 30 August 2023        Published: 30 September 2023

Citation: Lu J, Cui T, Yu Z, Zheng W, He W. Analgesic and safety analysis of dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine in ultrasound-guided brachial plexus nerve block. Trop J Pharm Res 2023; 22(9):1921-1927 doi: 10.4314/tjpr.v22i9.21

© 2023 The authors.
This is an Open Access article that uses a funding model which does not charge readers or their institutions for access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read), which permit unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited..

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate analgesic effect and safety of dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine in ultrasound-guided brachial plexus block in intercostal space.
Methods: A total of 90 patients were scheduled to undergo upper limb surgery and divided into control and study groups, respectively. Patients in control group were given ropivacaine nerve block, while those in study group were given ropivacaine combined with dexmedetomidine mixture nerve block. The efficiency of sensory and motor block, secondary evaluation of block effect, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at different postoperative moments, remedial analgesia and adverse reactions were compared between the two groups after 30 min of drug injection.
Results: The success rate of sensory block was not significantly different between control group (91.11 %) and study group (93.33 %; χ2 = 0.155, p > 0.05) but success rate of the motor block was significantly higher in study group (93.33 %) than in control group (71.11 %; χ2 = 7.601, p < 0.05). Compared with control group, onset of sensory block and motor block were significantly shorter in study group, while the duration of sensory block and motor block was significantly longer (p < 0.05). The VAS scores at 12, 24, and 48 h postoperatively were significantly lower in study group than control group (p < 0.05). The number of self-administered analgesia, number of patients, dose used, and overall incidence of adverse reactions in study group were significantly lower than in control group (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine and ropivacaine, when administered together, have a significant anesthetic effect during nerve block, which is safe and enhances their analgesic effect. However, the mechanism of improving analgesic effect of the combined plan, using a larger number of samples should be further investigated.

Keywords: Ropivacaine, Dexmedetomidine, Nerve block, Analgesic effect, Safety

Impact Factor
Thompson Reuters (ISI): 0.6 (2023)
H-5 index (Google Scholar): 49 (2023)

Article Tools

Share this article with



Article status: Free
Fulltext in PDF
Similar articles in Google
Similar article in this Journal:

Archives

2024; 23: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10
2023; 22: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2022; 21: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2021; 20: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2020; 19: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2019; 18: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2018; 17: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2017; 16: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2016; 15: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2015; 14: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2014; 13: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2013; 12: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2012; 11: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2011; 10: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2010; 9: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2009; 8: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2008; 7: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2007; 6: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2006; 5: 
1,   2
2005; 4: 
1,   2
2004; 3: 
1
2003; 2: 
1,   2
2002; 1: 
1,   2

News Updates