A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Addition of Dexmedetomidine to Propofol Anesthesia for Middle-Ear Surgeries: A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Study. | LitMetric

Background Middle-ear surgery commonly performed under a microscope requires a bloodless field provided by hypotensive anesthesia. Our objective was to study the effects of dexmedetomidine on propofol consumption and intraoperative hemodynamic stability. Methods One hundred adults undergoing elective middle-ear surgery were randomized into two groups. The propofol+dexmedetomidine group (Group PD) received a loading dose of dexmedetomidine 1μg/kg in 10ml normal saline over 10min followed by infusion of the same at 0.5μg/kg/h. Propofol-only group (Group P) received 10ml normal saline over 10min followed by an infusion of the same. General anesthesia was induced with intravenous morphine, propofol, and vecuronium, and maintained with propofol, oxygen, and NO. During microscope use, we aimed to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) within 60-69mmHg. Results There was no significant difference in the mean (SD) consumption of propofol [Group P 8.6 (2.1)mg/kg/h vs Group PD 8.1 (1.5)mg/kg/h, =0.172]. The induction dose of propofol was significantly less in Group PD [1.8 (0.3) vs 2 (0.4)mg/kg, <0.001]. Except for the baseline value, the heart rate was significantly lower in Group PD, <0.001. The time duration during which MAP was within 60-69mmHg was higher in Group P [37.5 (36.8) vs 30.9 (38.3)min] though the difference was not statistically significant. The recovery was delayed in Group PD [25.4 (8.6) vs 17.6 (4.9)min, <0.001]. Group PD had a significantly better operative field, =0.0003. Conclusion The addition of dexmedetomidine did not reduce propofol consumption but reduced the induction dose of propofol. Propofol and dexmedetomidine combination provided comparable mean arterial pressure and better operative field but caused delayed recovery.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11353618PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.68025DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

dexmedetomidine propofol
8
middle-ear surgery
8
group group
8
group received
8
10ml normal
8
normal saline
8
saline 10min
8
10min infusion
8
propofol
6
group
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!