Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Abstracts - RGCON 2016
Case Report
Commentary
Editorial
Erratum
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Original Article
Point of Technique
Review Article
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Abstracts - RGCON 2016
Case Report
Commentary
Editorial
Erratum
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Original Article
Point of Technique
Review Article
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Abstracts - RGCON 2016
Case Report
Commentary
Editorial
Erratum
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Original Article
Point of Technique
Review Article
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Abstracts - RGCON 2016
02 (
Suppl 1
); S121-S121
doi:
10.1055/s-0039-1685387

Miscellaneous: Poster Abstract: To compare the effects of dexmedetomidine versus propofol infusion on various parameters intraoperatively and their effects on the recovery profile postoperatively in patients undergoing laparoscopic assisted robotic pelvic surgeries

Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital, New Delhi, India
Licence
This open access article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Abstract

Methods:

80 ASA physical status I-II patients, 30-65 years, BMI ≤30 undergoing surgery for 120-180 minutes. Computer randomisation, 40 each, in dexmedetomidine group D and in propofol group P. Induction with fentanyl 1.5 mcg mkg−1 and propofol 2 mg kg−1. Maintained with desflurane 3-5% with air 50% and O2 50%. In D group (bolus 0.5 mcg mkg−1 for 10 minutes then maintenance 0.2-0.5 mcg mkg−1 hr−1) and in P group (propofol @ 50-150 mcg kg−1 min−1) started. At docking of robotic arms single dose morphine @ 0.075 mg kg−1 in both groups is given. Hemodynamic stability (MAP and HR) is adjusted within 20% of base line values.

Results:

Early and intermediate recovery was fast in D group and total fentanyl requirement intraoperatively was less in D group.

Discussion:

Dexmedetomidine is known to decrease sympathetic outflow and circulating catecholamine's levels therefore has caused decrease in both MAP and HR similar to propofol. Dexmedetomidine has analgesia sparing effect hence less total fentanyl dose both intraoperatively. Patients with dexmedetomidine are early aroused, so early and intermediate recoveries were faster with dexmedetomidine than propofol. Thus dexmedetomidine may prove to be useful adjuvant for robotic surgeries.

Conclusion:

Dexmedetomidine more effective for both intraoperative and postoperative analgesia. Recoveries both early and intermediate are faster in dexmedetomidine group.


Fulltext Views
134

PDF downloads
46
View/Download PDF
Download Citations
BibTeX
RIS
Show Sections