Trial reportHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Perineural versus intravenous dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant for ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve block in open inguinal hernia repair: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDexmedetomidine is widely added to peripheral nerve blocks, but whether the perineural or intravenous route provides better analgesia-and at what haemodynamic cost-is unclear in inguinal hernia repair. We compared the two routes as adjuncts to an ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric (II/IH) nerve block.
methodsThis single-centre, triple-blind randomised controlled trial enrolled 90 adults (ASA I-III) undergoing elective open inguinal hernia repair. All received an ultrasound-guided II/IH block (0.5% bupivacaine with epinephrine, 20 mL) and standardised tumescent local anaesthesia, and were randomised 1:1:1 to perineural dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg (DexLA), intravenous dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg over 10 min (DexIV), or placebo (Control). The primary outcome was movement-evoked visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-100) pain at 6 h, analysed by intention-to-treat.
resultsMovement VAS at 6 h was lower with perineural dexmedetomidine (DexLA 10.3 ± 10.3) than DexIV (20.0 ± 17.4) or Control (22.0 ± 20.6; overall p = 0.018): DexLA versus Control - 11.7 (95% CI - 21.9 to - 1.4; p = 0.022), whereas DexIV did not differ from Control (p = 0.888). This reduction reached the established minimum clinically important difference of approximately 10 points, although pain was low overall. Time to first opioid was similar (p = 0.723). Bradycardia was more frequent with DexIV (20.0%) than DexLA (3.3%) or Control (6.7%; DexIV vs DexLA p = 0.040); hypotension occurred in 43.3%, 40.0% and 20.0% (p = 0.151).
conclusionPerineural-but not intravenous-dexmedetomidine produced a clinically relevant reduction in early movement-evoked pain, whereas intravenous dexmedetomidine added bradycardia without analgesic benefit. If dexmedetomidine is used in this setting, the perineural route is preferable.
trial registrationThai Clinical Trials Registry TCTR20220208002; registered 7 February 2022.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42873284What 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.