ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
The effects of subtenon and intravenous dexmedetomidine on patients undergoing cataract surgery: A comparative randomized controlled double-blind study.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do we need ophthalmic anesthesia as a subspecialty?Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: This prospective randomized study designed to evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine either added to LA mixture or administered IV during subtenon block for cataract surgery. Material and Methods: 75 patients, undergoing cataract surgery with subtenon anesthesia, were assigned randomly into three equal groups, Group I received subtenon bupivacaine 0.5% (1 ml) + lidocaine 2% (1 ml) + saline 0.9% (0.5 ml) and IV infusion of normal saline. Group II received subtenon bupivacaine 0.5% (1 ml) + lidocaine 2% (1 ml) + 0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine (0.5 ml) and IV infusion of normal saline. Group III received subtenon bupivacaine 0.5% (1 ml) + lidocaine 2% (1 ml) + saline 0.9% (0.5 μl) and IV infusion of 0.5 mg/kg dexmedetomidine over 10 min. before subtenon block. We recorded onset and duration of sensory and motor block, pain during subtenon injection, intraoperative hemodynamics, intraocular pressure, sedation and postoperative pain score. Results: There was a significant decrease in the onset of action and an increase in the duration of sensory block in Group II. Pain during subtenon injection was significantly less in group III. Sedation Score was higher in Group III, while heart rate showed a significant reduction in the same group. The VAS was significantly decreased in group II. After the end of surgery, the intraocular pressure was significantly decreased in Groups II and III. Conclusion: Subtenon dexmedetomidine shortens onset time, prolongs sensory block durations and significantly decreases the postoperative pain score with hemodynamic stability, while, IV dexmedetomidine substantially reduces pain during subtenon block and produces intra-operative sedation.
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.