ArticleCureus2025
Low-Dose Epidural Dexmedetomidine as an Adjuvant to Bupivacaine Versus Conventional Bupivacaine for Postoperative Analgesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Dexmedetomidine attenuates nociceptive responses compared with propofol during intravenous sedation for dental surgery: a prospective observational study.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Epidural analgesia is widely employed in postoperative care for abdominal and lower limb surgeries, offering superior pain control, reduced opioid consumption, and improved postoperative recovery compared to systemic opioids. Objective The objective of this study is to evaluate postoperative analgesia following lower limb and abdominal procedures using low-dose epidural dexmedetomidine with 0.0625% bupivacaine against 0.125% bupivacaine. Methods Two groups of sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades I and II adults undergoing elective surgery were randomly assigned: Group BB received bupivacaine 0.125%, while Group BD received epidural bupivacaine 0.0625% with dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg). Over a day, assessments were made of the visual analog scale (VAS), hemodynamics, motor block (Bromage scale), Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), and rescue analgesia. Results Group BD required fewer rescue analgesics and had substantially lower VAS scores (p = 0.003). In the BD group without clinical hypotension, heart rate and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were somewhat lower. There was no discernible change in motor block. There were a few and controllable side effects. Conclusion The addition of dexmedetomidine to epidural bupivacaine has been shown to provide superior analgesia, enhanced hemodynamic stability, and a reduced incidence of adverse effects when compared to bupivacaine alone.
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.