The Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine vs. Sufentanil in Monitored Anesthesia Care during Burr-Hole Surgery for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: A Retrospective Clinical Trial

Local anesthesia with sedation and general anesthesia for the treatment of chronic subdural hematoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the primary treatment for chronic subdural hematoma, and anesthesia significantly impacts the surgery's outcomes. A previous systematic review compared general anesthesia to local anesthesia in 319 patients. Our study builds upon this research, analyzing 4,367 cases to provide updated and rigorous evidence.

METHODS

We systematically searched five electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid Medline, and Web of Science, to identify eligible comparative studies. All studies published until September 2023 were included in our analysis. We compared six primary outcomes between the two groups using Review Manager Software.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies involving a total of 4,367 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The analysis revealed no significant difference between the two techniques in terms of 'recurrence rate' (OR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.78 to 1.15], P = 0.59), 'mortality rate' (OR = 1.02, 95% CI [0.55 to 1.88], P = 0.96), and 'reoperation rate' (OR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.5 to 1.79], P = 0.87). Local anesthesia demonstrated superiority with a lower 'complications rate' than general anesthesia, as the latter had almost 2.4 times higher odds of experiencing complications (OR = 2.4, 95% CI [1.81 to 3.17], P < 0.00001). Additionally, local anesthesia was associated with a shorter 'length of hospital stay' (SMD = 1.19, 95% CI [1.06 to 1.32], P < 0.00001) and a reduced 'duration of surgery' (SMD = 0.94, 95% CI [0.67 to 1.2], P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

Surgery for chronic subdural hematoma under local anesthesia results in fewer complications, a shorter length of hospital stay, and a shorter duration of the operation.

Comparison of Opioid-Based Versus Opioid-Sparing Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Glioma Surgery

Background In the neurosurgical population, opioids may cause respiratory depression, leading to hypercapnia, increased cerebral blood flow (CBF), and ultimately increased intracranial pressure (ICP), which can mask early signs of intracranial complications and delayed emergence. This study was designed to compare perioperative hemodynamic stability, analgesia, and recovery parameters in opioid-based (fentanyl) general anesthesia versus opioid-sparing (dexmedetomidine) general anesthesia in patients undergoing glioma surgeries. Methodology This prospective observational comparative study compared 52 patients in two groups. Twenty-six (50%) patients in group F received Inj. fentanyl IV (intravenous; bolus 2 mcg/kg 10 minutes before induction and then infusion 1 mcg/kg/hour till 30 minutes before skin closure), whereas 26 (50%) patients in group D received Inj. dexmedetomidine IV (0.5 mcg/kg infusion 10 minutes before induction and then maintenance with a 0.5 mcg/kg/hour infusion till 30 minutes before skin closure). Perioperative heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), Numerical Rating Scale for Pain (NRS) assessment and postoperative emergence time, modified Aldrete score, patient satisfaction, and surgeon satisfaction score were estimated and compared in both groups. Results The mean HR was less in group D compared to group F at following time points - 10 minutes after infusion (P = 0.006), laryngoscopy and intubation (P = 0.003), pinning of the skull (P < 0.001), one hour after dura opening (P = 0.007), two hours after dura opening (P = 0.006), five minutes after extubation (P < 0.001), and 30 minutes after extubation (P = 0.011). MAP was lower in group D compared to group F at the following time intervals: 10 minutes after infusion (P = 0.008), five minutes after extubation (P = 0.007), 30 minutes after extubation (P < 0.001), and one hour after extubation (P = 0.023). A significant decrease in emergence time in group D compared to group F (P < 0.001) was noted. NRS was lower in group D at eight hours (P = 0.005) and 12 hours (P < 0.001) post-extubation. Conclusions Dexmedetomidine can be used as an alternative to fentanyl in terms of perioperative hemodynamic stability, perioperative analgesia, smooth early recovery from anesthesia, patient satisfaction, and surgeon satisfaction.

Using Local Anesthesia for Burr Hole Surgery of Chronic Subdural Hematoma Reduces Postoperative Complications, Length of Stay, and Hospitalization Cost: A Retrospective Cohort Study From a Single Center

PURPOSE

The purpose of the current study was to compare the effects of local anesthesia (LA) and general anesthesia (GA) on the surgical process and postoperative recovery of patients with unilateral chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients with unilateral CSDH who underwent burr hole surgery between the years 2013 and 2018. Patients who received local anesthesia were allocated to the LA group, and the patients who received general anesthesia were allocated to the GA group. The clinical data, postoperative complication, length of stay, and hospitalization cost of these two groups were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

Data from 105 patients was collected for this study. Fifty one patients were assigned to the LA group and 54 to GA group. The duration of anesthesia and operation of the LA group was 37.71 (10.55) min; while for the GA group the duration was 56.04 (8.37) min (p < 0.001). The time from operation to discharge in GA group was greatly longer than that in LA group [(8.51 (1.49) days vs. 10.46 (2.34) days, respectively; p < 0.001]. Hospitalization cost for LA group was 2,721.54 (504.66) USD, which was significantly lesser than that for GA patients [3,314.82 (493.52) USD; p < 0.001]. The total number of complications in LA patients was less than that in GA patients [6 vs. 29 cases, respectively; p < 0.001]. The number of patients with residual hematoma in the LA group was <that in the GA group (p = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

As compared to GA, LA might be a simpler, safer, and more effective method for burr hole surgery of CSDH to promote patients' recovery. However, further research is still required to confirm this conclusion.

Chronic Subdural Hematoma Drainage Under Local Anesthesia with Sedation versus General Anesthesia and Its Outcome

BACKGROUND

Burr hole drainage is the criterion standard treatment for chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH), a common neurosurgical condition. However, apart from the surgical technique, the method of anesthesia also has a significant impact on postoperative patient outcome. Currently, there are limited studies comparing the use of local anesthesia with sedation (LA sedation) versus general anesthesia (GA) in the drainage of CSDH. The objective of this study was to compare the morbidity and mortality outcomes of using LA sedation versus GA in CSDH burr hole drainage.

METHODS

This retrospective study presents a total of 257 operations in 243 patients from 2 hospitals. A total of 130 cases were operated under LA sedation in hospital 1 and 127 cases under GA in hospital 2. Patient demographics and presenting features were similar at baseline.

RESULTS

Values are shown as LA sedation versus GA. Postoperatively, most patients recovered well in both groups with Glasgow Outcome Scale scores of 4-5 (96.2% vs. 88.2%, respectively). The postoperative morbidity was significantly increased by an odds ratio of 5.44 in the GA group compared with the LA sedation group (P = 0.005). The mortality was also significantly higher in the GA group (n = 5, 3.9%) than the LA sedation group (n = 0, 0.0%; P = 0.028). The CSDH recurrence rate was 4.6% in the LA sedation group versus 6.3% in the GA group. No intraoperative conversion from LA sedation to GA was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that CSDH drainage under LA sedation is safe and efficacious, with a significantly lower risk of postoperative mortality and morbidity when compared with GA.

Analysis of Dexmedetomidine on the Quality of Awakening During Neurosurgery

Dexmedetomidine has a dose-dependent sedative and analgesic effect. To further evaluate the wake-up quality of dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing neurosurgery, a meta-analysis of dexmedetomidine in a randomized controlled trial of general anesthesia was performed. Firstly, an experimental algorithm was proposed, and then the data fusion algorithm was used to conduct randomized controlled trials. The clinical efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in the acupuncture of neurosurgical patients were evaluated one by one for quality evaluation and data extraction. The effect of different input variables on the depth of anesthesia was studied by using a multi-data fusion approach. The results show that the data fusion algorithm proposed can effectively connect redundant information and complementary information in multiple data, and estimate the real parameters of the measured object. In addition, data fusion brings great convenience to the design of control algorithms and controllers, and provides an effective basis for system simplification. Experiments have shown that dexmedetomidine is effective and safe in the operation of neurosurgical motor function, and the management of the recovery period is safe and effective. Based on the research, it can provide some reference for the awakening of patients undergoing neurosurgery, and promote the progress and development of medicine.

Effects of dexmedetomidine vs sufentanil during percutaneous tracheostomy for traumatic brain injury patients: A prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous tracheostomy, almost associated with cough reflex and hemodynamic fluctuations, is a common procedure for traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients, especially those in neurosurgery intensive care units (NICUs). However, there are currently a lack of effective preventive measures to reduce the risk of secondary brain injury. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of dexmedetomidine (DEX) vs sufentanil during percutaneous tracheostomy in TBI patients.

METHODS

The 196 TBI patients who underwent percutaneous tracheostomy were randomized divided into 3 groups: group D1 (n = 62, DEX infusion at 0.5 μg·kg for 10 minutes, then adjusted to 0.2-0.7 μg·kg·hour), group D2 (n = 68, DEX infusion at 1 μg·kg for 10 minutes, then adjusted to 0.2-0.7 μg·kg·hour), and group S (n = 66, sufentanil infusion 0.3 μg·kg for 10 minutes, then adjusted to 0.2-0.4 μg·kg·hour). The bispectral index (BIS) of all patients was maintained at 50 to 70 during surgery. Anesthesia onset time, hemodynamic variables, total cumulative dose of DEX/sufentanil, total doses of rescue propofol and fentanyl, time to first dose of rescue propofol and fentanyl, number of intraoperative patient movements and cough reflexes, adverse events, and surgeon satisfaction score were recorded.

RESULTS

Anesthesia onset time was significantly lower in group D2 than in both other groups (14.35 ± 3.23 vs 12.42 ± 2.12 vs 13.88 ± 3.51 minutes in groups D1, D2, and S, respectively; P < .001). Both heart rate and mean arterial pressure during percutaneous tracheostomy were more stable in group D2. Total doses of rescue propofol and fentanyl were significantly lower in group D2 than in group D1 (P < .001). The time to first dose of rescue propofol and fentanyl were significantly longer in group D2 than in both other groups (P < .001). The number of patient movements and cough reflexes during percutaneous tracheostomy were lower in group D2 than in both other groups (P < .001). The overall incidences of tachycardia and hypertension (which required higher doses of esmolol and urapidil, respectively) were also lower in group D2 than in both other groups (P < .05). Three patients in group S had respiratory depression compared to X in the D1 group and X in the D2 group. The surgeon satisfaction score was significantly higher in group D2 than in both other groups (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

During percutaneous tracheostomy, compared with sufentanil, DEX (1 μg·kg for 10 minutes, then adjusted to 0.2-0.7 μg·kg·hour) can provide the desired attenuation of the hemodynamic response without increased adverse events. Consequently, DEX could be used safely and effectively during percutaneous tracheostomy in TBI patients.

The safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for patients undergoing endovascular therapy for acute stroke: A prospective randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

It is uncertain if dexmedetomidine has more favorable pharmacokinetic profile than the traditional sedative drug propofol in patients who undergo endovascular therapy for acute stroke. We conducted a prospective randomized control trial to compare the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine with propofol for patients undergoing endovascular therapy for acute stroke.

METHODS

A total of 80 patients who met study inclusion criteria were received either propofol (n = 45) or dexmedetomidine (n = 35) between January 2016 and August 2018. We recorded the favorable neurologic outcome (modified Rankin score <3) both at discharge and 3 months after stroke, National Institute of Health Stroke scale (NIHSS) at 48 hours post intervention, modified thrombolysis in myocardial infarction score on digital subtraction angiography, intraprocedural hemodynamics, recovery time, relevant time intervals, satisfaction score of the surgeon, mortality, and complications.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the 2 groups (P > .05) with respect to heart rate, respiratory rate, and SPO2 during the procedure. The mean arterial pressure (MAP) was significantly low in the propofol group until 15 minutes after anesthesia was induced. No difference was recorded between the groups at the incidence of fall in MAP >20%, MAP >40% and time spent with MAP fall >20% from baseline MAP. In the propofol group, the time spent with MAP fall >40% from baseline MAP was significantly long (P < .05). Midazolam and fentanyl were similar between the 2 groups (P > .05) that used vasoactive drugs. The time interval from stroke onset to CT room, from stroke onset to groin puncture, and from stroke onset to recanalization/end of the procedure, was not significantly different between the 2 groups (P > .05). The recovery time was longer in the dexmedetomidine group (P < .05). There was no difference between the groups with respect to complications, favorable neurological outcome, and mortality both at hospital discharge and 3 months later, successful recanalization and NIHSS score after 48 hours (P > .05). However, the satisfaction score of the surgeon was higher in the dexmedetomidine group (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine was undesirable than propofol as a sedative agent during endovascular therapy in patients with acute stroke for a long-term functional outcome, though the satisfaction score of the surgeon was higher in the dexmedetomidine group.

Comparative Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine and Propofol Along With Scalp Block on Haemodynamic and Postoperative Recovery for Chronic Subdural Haematoma Evacuation Under Monitored Anaesthesia Care

OBJECTIVE

Chronic subdural haematoma (CSDH) is a common neurosurgical problem, and treatment includes evacuation of the haematoma by burr hole drainage. Commonly, these procedures are performed under local anaesthesia, general anaesthesia or, recently, with monitored anaesthesia care (MAC). We compared dexmedetomidine- and propofol-based sedation along with scalp nerve block for burr hole evacuation of CSDH.

METHODS

In this prospective randomised study, 62 patients were divided into the following two groups of 31 patients each: Group D and Group P. Group D received dexmedetomidine 1 μg kg-1 over 10 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 0.2-0.7 μg kg-1 hr-1. Group P received propofol 1 mg kg-1 over 10 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 1-3 mg kg-1 hr-1. The heart rate (HR) and blood pressure were measured at different intervals. The recovery parameter and satisfaction score were also recorded.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences noted in the demographic profile. A significant decrease in HR compared to preoperative value was seen in Group D compared to Group P. Blood pressure values were statistically significantly lower in both study groups, compared to preoperative values during the whole procedure and after surgery (p<0.05). Time to achieve modified Aldrete score of 9-10 was not significantly different between the groups (p=0.354). Surgeon satisfaction was significantly better in Group D compared to Group P (p<0.05), but patient satisfaction was similar between the groups (p=0.364).

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine-based sedation compared to propofol, along with scalp block for MAC in patients undergoing burr hole evacuation of CSDH is associated with haemodynamic stability and greater surgeon satisfaction.

Intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine promotes postoperative sleep and recovery following radical mastectomy under general anesthesia

Postoperative sleep disturbance and fatigue following radical mastectomy were high risks for prolonged convalescence in patients with breast cancer. The present study was designed to observe the effect of intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine on postoperative sleep, fatigue and recovery following radical mastectomy under general anesthesia. Forty-seven patients were randomized into two groups that were maintained with propofol/remifentanil/Ringer's solution (Control group), or propofol/remifentanil/Dexmedetomidine (DEX group) for surgery under general anesthesia. During the first night following surgery, patients receiving dexmedetomine spent more time sleeping when compared with those form the Control group. During the first week following operation, when compared with the Control group, patients from the DEX group had a higher score of global 40-item recovery questionnaire on day 3 following operation, and lower 9-question fatigue severity scores on day 3 and day 7 following operation. In conclusion, intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine is sufficient to improve postoperative sleep disorder, promote postoperative recovery. The adverse effect of dexmedetomidine on sleep disturbance might be contributed to its recovery-promoting effect.

Dexmedetomidine Improves Postoperative Patient-Controlled Analgesia following Radical Mastectomy

Acute postoperative pain following radical mastectomy is a high risk for prolonged convalescence and potential persistent pain in patients with breast cancer. The present study was designed to observe the effect of intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine on acute postoperative pain following radical mastectomy under general anesthesia. Forty-five patients were enrolled into the study and divided into two groups that were maintained with propofol/remifentanil/Ringer's solution or propofol/remifentanil/Dexmedetomidine followed by morphine-based patient-controlled analgesia. During the first 24 h following surgery, patients receiving dexmedetomine had lower NRS pain scores, decreased morphine consumption, longer time to first morphine request as well as a trending decreased incidence of adverse effects when compared to those received Ringer's solution. In conclusion, the present study finds that intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine could promote analgesic property of postoperative morphine.

Efficacy of dexmedetomidine during radiofrequency ablation of liver tumors

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine during radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of liver tumors.

METHODS

Sixty patients who would undergo RFA for liver tumors were randomly allocated to two groups to receive either dexmedetomidine (group D) or propofol (group P). Both groups received continuous infusion of remifentanil for pain control. The general clinical data of patients, intraoperative vital signs, operative time, total dose of intraoperative remifentanil, anesthesia effects, anesthesia awakening time and major adverse anesthesia events were recorded and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The general clinical data of patients, intraoperative vital signs, operative time, anesthesia effects and anesthesia awakening time showed no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05). Compared with group P, the total dose of intraoperative remifentanil and the incidence of respiratory depression were significantly reduced in group D (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with propofol, dexmedetomidine provides better respiratory stability and reduces opioid consumption and the incidence of adverse events in patients undergoing RFA for liver tumors.

The efficacy of dexmedetomidine-remifentanil versus dexmedetomidine-propofol in children undergoing flexible bronchoscopy: A retrospective trial

Flexible bronchoscopy has been more and more used for diagnosis and management diseases of respiratory system in pediatrics. Previous studies have reported that remifentanil (RF) and propofol are safe and effective for flexible bronchoscopy in adults, however, there have no trials evaluate the efficacy of DEX-RF versus dexmedetomidine-propofol in children undergoing flexible bronchoscopy.We divided 123 children undergoing flexible bronchoscopy with DEX-RF or dexmedetomidine-propofol into 2 groups: Group DR (n = 63, DEX infusion at 1.0 μg kg for 10 minutes, then adjusted to 0.5-0.7 μg kg h; RF infusion at 1.0 μg kg for 5 minutes, then adjusted to 0.05-0.2 μg kg min), Group DP (n = 60, DEX infusion at 1.0 μg kg for 10 minutes, then adjusted to 0.5-0.7 μg kg h; propofol infusion at 10 μg kg for 5 minutes, then adjusted to 0.05-0.1 μg kg min). Ramsay sedation scale of the 2 groups was maintained at 3. Anesthesia onset time; total number of intraoperative patient movements; hemodynamics; total cumulative dose of DEX; amount of and time to first-dose rescue midazolam and lidocaine; postoperative recovery time; adverse events; and bronchoscopist satisfaction score were recorded.Anesthesia onset time was significantly shorter in DP (8.22 ± 2.48 vs 12.25 ± 6.43 minutes, respectively, for DP, DR, P = 0.015). The perioperative hemodynamic profile was more stable in DR than DP group. More children moved during flexible bronchoscopy in DP group (P = 0.009). Total dose of rescue midazolam and lidocaine was significantly higher in DR than in DP (P < 0.001). Similarly, the time to first dose of rescue midazolam and lidocaine was significantly longer in DP than in DR (P < 0.001). Total cumulative dose of DEX was more in DR than DP group (P < 0.001). The time to recovery for discharge from the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) was significantly shorter in DP than in DR group (P < 0.001). The bronchoscopist-satisfaction scores were higher for DR than DP (P = 0.036). There were significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of the overall incidence of hypertension, tachycardia, and hypoxemia (P < 0.05).Although underwent longer recovery time and more incidence of rescue scheme, DEX-RF resulted in more stable hemodynamic profiles and bronchoscopist-satisfaction scores, lesser patient movements, and can hence be more effectively used in children undergoing flexible bronchoscopy than dexmedetomidine-propofol.