ArticleCureus2024
A Randomized Study to Compare the Efficacy Between Intranasal and Intravenous Dexmedetomidine for the Removal of Foreign Bodies in the Esophagus at the Cricopharynx Level in Pediatric Patients.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Efficacy of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine Premedication as an Adjunct on Intubation Process in Paediatric Patients: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2026Article
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
backgroundForeign body (coins, magnets, button batteries, and metallic foreign bodies) ingestion is common and causes significant morbidity and mortality in children aged six months to three years. Endoscopic removal of swallowed foreign substances is widely accepted, but sedation and general anesthesia may be required to alleviate pain and anxiety during the procedure. Dexmedetomidine is used as a sedative, hypnotic, anxiolytic, and analgesic. In this study, we aimed to investigate and compare the efficacy between the intranasal (IN) and intravenous (IV) routes for the administration of dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to propofol for the removal of foreign bodies in the esophagus at the cricopharynx level in pediatric patients. MATERIALS AND
methodThis prospective, double-blinded, randomized study was conducted on 80 patients of either sex and American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status (ASA PS) I and II aged one month to 12 years with a foreign body in the esophagus at the cricopharynx level undergoing endoscopic foreign body removal. Patients were randomly allocated into groups A and B, with 40 patients each. In the preoperative area group A, IN, 3 mcg/kg, was dripped equally in both nostrils (supine position). In Group B, IV, 3 mcg/kg, diluted in normal saline, was administered intravenously slowly over 10 minutes. The onset of sedation was assessed using the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) every 10 minutes following dexmedetomidine administration, and when an RSS score of 3 or above was achieved, the patient was transferred to the operation theater. In the operation room, patients were induced with injection propofol in a dose of 2 mg/kg or until the loss of verbal response. Parent separation scale scoring was used to evaluate the child's behavior on separation from parents as a tool to assess the anxiolytic property of dexmedetomidine. Perioperative pain using the Wong-Baker Faces pain rating scale, heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SpO
resultsThe mean time (minutes) in shifting to operation theater (33.8 ± 5) was significantly higher in group A compared to group B (10.7 ± 2.1) (p = 0.001). The mean Ramsay Sedation Score was higher at 10 and 20 minutes in group B as compared to group A. Group B had significantly lower pain (2.2 ± 1.4) (p ≤ 0.001) at 10 minutes, while in group A, the pain score decreased slowly and took more time but remains lower (1.35 ± 0.94) for longer duration (120 minutes) in the postoperative period in comparison to Group B (1.94 ± 0.35) (p = 0.002). Group B had a sharp hemodynamic decrease, while group A had slow, persistent changes.
conclusionIN administration of dexmedetomidine is a safer and more effective mode of sedation to remove a foreign body from the esophagus at the cricopharyngeal level in pediatric patients. It provides stable and sustained hemodynamic parameters and longer postoperative pain relief compared to IV dexmedetomidine.
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.