ArticleCureus2026
Comparison of Intravenous and Nebulized Dexmedetomidine for Surgical Field Visualization in Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFunctional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) requires optimal surgical field visualization. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of intravenous (IV) and nebulized dexmedetomidine on surgical field visualization in FESS.
methodsThe study population (n = 114) was randomly divided into group A (nebulized dexmedetomidine), group B (IV dexmedetomidine), and group C (normal saline). The primary outcome was to compare the efficacy of IV and nebulized dexmedetomidine on surgical field visualization. The secondary outcomes were to evaluate the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation, and to compare blood loss, sedative effects, postoperative sore throat (POST), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).
resultsBoth groups A and B provided optimal surgical field visualization, but group A maintained it for a longer duration (p < 0.05). After laryngoscopy, both groups A and B attenuated the response; however, the increase in heart rate was significantly lower in group B. There was no significant difference in blood pressure between groups A and B (p > 0.05). Both groups A and B reduced blood loss, reduced POST, and reduced PONV (p > 0.05). Group B was better at preventing a fall in postoperative hemoglobin (p = 0.009) and hematocrit (p = 0.006). Group B produced more sedation than group A, although not clinically significant (p > 0.05).
conclusionsBoth IV and nebulized dexmedetomidine at 1 mcg/kg provided optimal surgical field visualization, attenuated the response to laryngoscopy and intubation and reduced blood loss, POST, and PONV. However, nebulized dexmedetomidine provided surgical field visualization for a longer duration, and IV dexmedetomidine better prevented the postoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit reduction.
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.