Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2024
Comparison of the effect of dexmedetomidine intrathecal injection and intravenous infusion on subarachnoid blockade during knee arthroscopy procedures: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of intrathecal adjuvants in lower limb orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComparison of whether intrathecal dexmedetomidine prolongs spinal anesthesia-associated sensorimotor blockade more than intravenous infusion during knee arthroscopy procedures performed under subarachnoid blockade.
methodsNinety patients aged 18-75 years, ASA class I-II, who underwent knee arthroscopy between October 2022 and April 2023 were randomized into intrathecal、intravenous and control groups.Subjects received three modes of administration: an intrathecal group (2 ml of 1% ropivacaine + 1 ml of 5 μg dexmedetomidine, along with intravenous saline infusion), an intravenous group (intrathecal 2 ml of 1% ropivacaine + 1 ml of 0.9% saline, with dexmedetomidine pumped intravenously at a dose of 0.5 μg/kg/h), and a control group (intrathecal 2 ml of 1% ropivacaine + 1 ml of 0.9% saline, along with intravenous saline infusion). Total analgesic duration, duration of sensory and motor blockade, Ramsay sedation score, Visual Analogue Score (VAS) at different postoperative time points, and occurrence of adverse effects were recorded.
resultsThe total analgesia duration was significantly longer in the intrathecal group than in the intravenous and control groups (352.13 ± 51.70 min VS 273.47 ± 62.57 min VS 241.41 ± 59.22 min, P < 0.001).The onset of sensory block was shorter in the intrathecal group than in the intravenous and control groups (4 [3-4]min VS 5 [4-5]min VS 5 [4-5]min; P < 0.001);the onset of motor block was shorter in the intrathecal group than in the intravenous group and the control group (5 [4-5]min VS 5 [5-6]min VS 6[5.5-7]min; P < 0.001).Sedation scores were higher in the intravenous group than in the intrathecal and control groups (P < 0.001). At 5 h postoperatively, the VAS score in the intrathecal group was lower than that in the intravenous and control groups (P < 0.001). At 24 h postoperatively, the VAS score in the intrathecal group was lower than that in the control group (P < 0.001). In addition, the incidence of bradycardia was significantly higher in the intravenous group than in the intrathecal and control groups (30%, 6.5%, and 3.4%, respectively; P = 0.018, P = 0.007).
conclusionsIntrathecal administration of dexmedetomidine did prolong the total analgesia duration, as well as accelerate the onset of sensory-motor blockade compared with intravenous infusion, and did not result in any hemodynamic instability or other adverse events at the doses studied.
trial registrationThis single-center, prospective, RCT has completed the registration of the Chinese Clinical Trial Center at 26/09/2023 with the registration number ChiCTR2300076170.
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.