Volume 5, Issue 4 (Journal of Anesthesiology and Pain 2015)                   JAP 2015, 5(4): 21-31 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Alimyan M, Zaman B, Mohaghegh M R, Kholdebarin A R, Pourbakhshandeh A, Kazemtori E. Comparing the effect of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil on recovery time of patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion surgery.. JAP. 2015; 5 (4) :21-31
URL: http://jap.iums.ac.ir/article-1-5203-en.html
1- Assistant professor of Anesthesiology Iran University of Medical Sciences, Rasoul e Akram hospital, Tehran, Iran.
2- Assistant professor of Anesthesiology Iran University of Medical Sciences, Firoozgar hospital, Tehran, Iran. , a.kholdebarin@yahoo.com
3- Resident of anesthesiology Iran University of Medical Sciences, Rasoul e Akram hospital, Tehran, Iran.
4- Resident of anesthesiology Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Rasoul e Akram hospital, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract:   (2036 Views)
Aim and Background: The alpha-2 agonist dexmedetomidine, a potent sedative and analgesic by its central
sympatholytic action, promotes hemodynamic stability. However it is unknown whether the recovery from
anesthesia would be delayed with continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine because of its sedative effect. The
aim of present study is to assess the effect of intravenous dexmedetomidine on postoperative recovery in elective
posterior spinal fusion surgery.
Materials and Methods: Forty patients were randomly divided into two equal groups group R (remifentanil)
received fentanyl 2 μg/kg + remifentanil 0.1 μg/kg and group D (dexmedetomidine) recieved fentanyl 2 μg/kg
+ dexmedetomidine 0.1 μg/kg over 10 min as premedication prior to induction. All of them received propofol
2mg/kg and Cis-Atracurium 0.2mg/kg for induction and then group R received remifentanil 0.1 μg/kg/min and
group D had dexmedetomidine 0.1 μg/kg/h, both with propofol 100 μg/kg/min and Atracurium as intravenous
infusion. Postoperative recovery was assessed by Aldrete’s score just at extubation, and every 10 min thereafter
in recovery room.
Findings: There was no significant difference in hemodynamic variables and the trend of Aldrete’s score between
two groups. Aldrete’s score in group R was significantly higher than group D in the first evaluation in recovery
room and 10 min after that (p<0.05). There was no significant delay in recovery time of group D patients. Sedative
consumption and postoperative analgesic demand were insignificantly lower in group D.
Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine maintains hemodynamic stability without significant delay in recovery time
after general anesthesia in comparison with remifentanil. This property can make it as an alternative option for
opioid medications.
Keywords: Aldrete score, Dexmedetomidine, Haemodynamics, Recovery, Remifentanil.
Full-Text [PDF 348 kb]   (2376 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original | Subject: Anesthesia pharmacology
Received: 2015.04.20 | Accepted: 2015.05.24 | Published: 2015.06.22

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
Write the security code in the box

Send email to the article author

© 2018 All Rights Reserved | Anesthesiology and Pain

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb