ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Pain relief after ambulatory hand surgery: A comparison between dexmedetomidine and clonidine as adjuvant in axillary brachial plexus block: A prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled study.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimal dose of perineural dexmedetomidine to prolong analgesia after brachial plexus blockade: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of 57 randomized clinical trials.BMC anesthesiology · 2021Pooled it
- Effects of adding dexmedetomidine, fentanyl, and verapamil to 0.5% ropivacaine on onset and duration of sensory and motor block in forearm surgeries: a randomized controlled trial.Medical gas researchTrial
- Retraction.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2020-05-30Falsification/Fabrication of Data · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Objections by Third Party · Plagiarism of/in Article ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor ages various adjuvants have been tried to prolong axillary brachial plexus block. We compared the effect of adding dexmedetomidine versus clonidine to ropivacaine for axillary brachial plexus blockade. The primary endpoints were the onset and duration of sensory and motor block and duration of analgesia. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 90 patients (20-40 years) posted for ambulatory elective hand surgery under axillary brachial plexus block were divided into two equal groups (groups ropivacaine dexmedetomidine [RD] and ropivacaine clonidine [RC]) in a randomized, double-blind fashion. In group RD (n = 45) 30 ml 0.5% ropivacaine + 100 μg of dexmedetomidine and group RC (n = 45) 30 ml 0.5% ropivacaine + 75 μg clonidine were administered in axillary plexus block. Sensory and motor block onset times and block durations, time to first analgesic use, total analgesic need, postoperative visual analog scale (VAS), hemodynamics and side-effects were recorded for each patient.
resultsThough with similar demographic profile in both groups, sensory and motor block in group RD (P < 0.05) was earlier than group RC. Sensory and motor block duration and time to first analgesic use were significantly longer and the total need for rescue analgesics was lower in group RD (P < 0.05) than group RC. Postoperative VAS value at 18 h were significantly lower in group RD (P < 0.05). Intraoperative hemodynamics were insignificantly lower in group RD (P < 0.05) without any appreciable side-effects.
conclusionIt can be concluded that adding dexmedetomidine to axillary plexus block increases the sensory and motor block duration and time to first analgesic use, and decreases total analgesic use with no side-effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.