ArticleAnesthesia and pain medicine2024
A comparative study of two different doses of dexmedetomedine as an adjuvant to lignocaine in infiltration block for tympanoplasty: a triple-blinded, prospective, randomized controlled trial.
Article in Anesthesia and pain medicine, 2024. 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.
- Definition, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of perioperative bleeding in randomized controlled trials: a methodological systematic review.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ideal anesthetic drug choice for local infiltration anesthesia under monitored anesthesia care must provide analgesia and patients' comfort along with a bloodless surgical field for patients. We hypothesized that dexemedetomidine can provide better visibility of the surgical field at a higher dose of 1 µg/kg than 0.5 µg/kg, along with providing sedation and analgesia.
methodsAfter institutional ethics committee clearance and written informed consent, this prospective, randomized, triple blind study was conducted on ninety patients, between 18- 65 years who were scheduled for tympanoplasty. The patients were randomly assigned to either the dexmedetomidine (DEX) 0.5 group or the DEX 1.0 group, and received 10 ml solution containing 2% lignocaine with 0.5 µg/kg dexmedetomidine, or the 1 µg/kg dexmedetomidine. The operative surgeon performed local infiltration using standardized 5-point infiltration technique around the auricle. The primary objective was to compare the intraoperative bleeding at the surgical site. The comparison of normally distributed variables was conducted using the Student's t-test, whereas non-normally distributed variables was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. The analysis of qualitative data was conducted using the chisquare/Fisher's exact test. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThe overall bleeding score was significantly higher in the DEX 0.5 group (3.21 ± 0.727) than the DEX 1.0 group (1.43 ± 0.661) (P value < 0.001). The time to first analgesic requirement and surgeon satisfaction score were also significantly higher in the DEX 1.0 group.
conclusionsCombining dexmedetomidine at a dose of 1 µg/kg with 2% lignocaine for infiltration provided improved analgesia and improved the surgical field during tympanoplasty performed under monitored anesthesia care.
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.