ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2016
Comparison of propofol-hydromorphone and propofol-dexmedetomidine in patients with intubation after maxillofacial plastic surgery.
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Comparative Study on Sedation Efficacy Between General and Regional Anesthesia with Dexmedetomidine in Patients Under Maxillofacial Surgery.Current drug metabolism · 2022Trial
- Comparison between Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam for Sedation in Patients with Intubation after Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.BioMed research international · 2020Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the sedation and analgesic effects between propofol-hydromorphone and propofol-dexmedetomidine in patients with postoperative intubation after maxillofacial plastic surgery.
methodsForty-two patients undertaking maxillofacial plastic surgery with intubation were randomly assigned into propofol plus hydromorphone (P-H) group or propofol plus dexmedetomidine (P-D) group, receiving intravenous infusion of P-H or P-D, respectively. Cerebral state index, Ramsay sedation score, arterial blood gas analysis, and physiology indices were recorded before admission (T0), 30 minutes (T1), 1 hour (T2), 2 hours (T3), 6 hours (T4), and 12 hours after admission (T5) to intensive care unit, and 10 minutes after extubation (T6). Blood interleukin-6 was measured with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
resultsThere was no significant difference in arterial blood gas analysis, oxygen saturation, mean arterial pressure, and respiratory rate between two groups at all time-points (P>0.05). The changes of heart rate (at T4, T5, and T6), cerebral state index (T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5), and Ramsay score (at T3) in P-H group were significantly different from that in P-D group (P<0.05). The plasma interleukin-6 at T4 in P-H group was significantly lower than that in P-D group (P<0.05).
conclusionThe P-H approach takes advantages over P-D approach in relieving the pain and discomfort, reducing the overstimulation of sympathetic nerve and the stress level, and enhancing the tolerance of postoperative intubation after maxillofacial plastic surgery.
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.