Intrathecal Dexmedetomidine, Ketamine, and their Combination Added to Bupivacaine for Postoperative Analgesia in Major Abdominal Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal ketamine has been studied extensively in animals, but rarely in humans. Intrathecal dexmedetomidine prolongs the duration of spinal anesthesia. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of intrathecal dexmedetomidine, ketamine, or both when added to bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia in major abdominal cancer surgery. DESIGN: Double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Academic medical center. METHODS: Ninety patients were randomly allocated to receive either intrathecal 10 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% and 5 µg of dexmedetomidine (group I, n = 30), 10 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% and 0.1 mg/kg ketamine (group II, n = 30), or 10 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% and 5 µg of dexmedetomidine plus 0.1 mg/kg of ketamine (group III, n = 30). Hemodynamics, pain score, time to first request of analgesia, total PCA morphine consumption, sedation score, and adverse effects in the first 24 hours postoperatively were recorded. RESULTS: Time to first request of analgesia was longer in group II (7.42 ± 1.43 h) and group III (13.00 ± 7.31h) compared to group I (3.50 ± 1.57 h). PCA morphine consumption was less in group III (6.67 ± 2.8 mg) compared to group I (9.16 ± 3.63 mg) and group II (8.66 ± 3.49 mg). Group III showed lower postoperative pain scores, and a higher incidence of postoperative sedation (P < 0.03). LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its relatively small sample size. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the combination of intrathecal dexmedetomidine and ketamine provided superior postoperative analgesia, prolonged the time to first request of rescue analgesia, and reduced the total consumption of PCA morphine, without serious side effects compared to either drug alone.

Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine in Treating Post Spinal Anesthesia Shivering: A Randomized Clinically Controlled Dose-Finding Trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimum dose of dexmedetomidine for shivering control with the least hemodynamic derangements is still under research. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, hemodynamic and side effects of dexmedetomidine in 3 different doses with those of meperidine for the treatment of shivering in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia for minor elective lower abdominal surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective double-blind randomized clinically controlled study. SETTING: University hospital. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients who developed shivering under spinal anesthesia.On shivering, patients were randomly allocated to receive an intravenous 2 mL bolus dose of meperidine 0.4 mg/kg (meperidine group, n = 30), dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg/kg (DEX I group, n = 30), 0.3 µg/kg (DEX II group, n = 30), or 0.2µg/kg (DEX III group, n = 30). Control of shivering, time taken for cessation of shivering, response rate, recurrence, hemodynamic changes, sedation score, tympanic temperature, and side effects were noted and compared between groups. RESULTS: The groups were comparable regarding demographic profile, tympanic temperature decline, and shivering onset time (P > 0.05). Lower shivering cessation time (P < 0.001) and higher response rate (P < 0.01) were observed in DEX I and II groups compared with DEX III and meperidine groups, with a nonsignificant difference between DEX I and II groups. Recurrence of shivering activity was higher in DEX III group (36.7%, P < 0.01) compared with DEX I (10%), DEX II (6.7%) and meperidine (16.7%) groups. Lower heart rates, systolic and diastolic blood pressure mean values were recorded in DEX I group (P < 0.05). Nine patients (30%) in DEX I group were in levels 3 - 5 of sedation (P < 0.02) compared with 5 (16.66%), 2 (6.66%), and 4 (13.3) patients in DEX II, DEX III, and meperidine groups, respectively. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Among the 3 doses investigated, dexmedetomidine 0.3µg/kg effectively treated shivering associated with spinal anesthesia with modest hemodynamic and sedation effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02382432. KEY WORDS: Dexmedetomidine, hypothermia, shivering, spinal anesthesia.

Superior hypogastric plexus combined with ganglion impar neurolytic blocks for pelvic and/or perineal cancer pain relief.

BACKGROUND: The superior hypogastric plexus (SHGP) carries afferents from the viscera of the lower abdomen and pelvis. Neurolytic block of this plexus is used for reducing pain resulting from malignancy in these organs. The ganglion impar (GI) innervats the perineum, distal rectum, anus, distal urethra, vulva, and distal third of the vagina. Different approaches to the ganglion impar neurolysis have been described in the literature. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of combining the block of the SHGP through the postero-median transdiscal approach with the GI block by the trans-sacro-coccygeal approach for relief of pelvic and/or perineal pain caused by pelvic and/or perineal malignancies or any cancer related causes. METHODS: Fifteen patients who had cancer-related pelvic pain, perineal pain, or both received a combined SHGP neurolytic block through the postero-median transdiscal approach using a 20-gauge Chiba needle and injection of 10 mL of 10% phenol in saline plus a GI neurolytic block by the trans-sacro-coccygeal approach using a 22-gauge 5 cm needle and injection of 4 - 6 mL of 8% phenol in saline. Pain intensity (measured using a visual analogue scale) and oral morphine consumption pre- and post-procedure were measured. RESULTS: All patients presented with cancer-related pelvic, perineal, or pelviperineal pain. Pain scores were reduced from a mean (± SD) of 7.87 ± 1.19 pre-procedurally to 2.40 ± 2.10 one week post-procedurally (P < 0.05). In addition, the mean consumption of morphine (delivered via 30 mg sustained-release morphine tablets) was reduced from 98.00 ± 34.89 mg to 32.00 ± 28.48 mg after one week (P < 0.05). No complications or serious side effects were encountered during or after the block. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its small sample size and non-randomized study. CONCLUSION: A combined neurolytic SHGP block with GI block is an effective and safe technique for reducing pain in cancer patients presented with pelvic and/or perineal pain. Also, a combined SHGP block through a posteromedian transdiscal approach with a GI block through a trans-sacrococcygeal approach may be considered more effective and easier to perform than the recently invented bilateral inferior hypogastric plexus neurolysis through a transsacral approach.

Efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal dexmedetomidine with bupivacaine in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery, a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to investigate the efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal dexmedetomidine (Dex) combined with bupivacaine in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. DESIGN: Randomized double-blind study. SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients scheduled for laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery were randomly assigned for intraperitoneal administration of 50 mL saline (control group; GI, n = 15), 50 mL bupivacaine 0.25% (125 mg; GII, n = 15), or 50 mL bupivacaine 0.25% (125 mg) +1 µg/kg Dex (GIII, n = 15). Patients were assessed during the first 24 hours postoperatively for hemodynamics, visual analogue scale (VAS), time to first request of analgesia, total analgesic consumption, shoulder pain, and side effects. RESULTS: A significant reduction was observed in VAS in GIII at base line, 2, 4, and 24 hours postoperatively in comparison to GI and GII (P < 0.05). The time to first analgesic requirement was significantly prolonged in GIII (P < 0.05). The mean total consumption of rescue analgesia was significantly reduced in GIII. CONCLUSION: We conclude that intraperitoneal administration of Dex 1 µg/kg combined with bupivacaine improves the quality and the duration of postoperative analgesia and provides an analgesic sparing effect compared to bupivacaine alone without significant adverse effects in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

Chemical neurolysis of the inferior hypogastric plexus for the treatment of cancer-related pelvic and perineal pain.

BACKGROUND: Various interventions, including the superior hypogastric plexus block and ganglion impar block, are commonly used for the treatment of pelvic or perineal pain caused by cancer. The inferior hypogastric plexus block (performed using a trans-sacral approach under fluoroscopy and using a local anesthetics/steroid combination) for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain conditions involving the lower pelvic viscera was first described in 2007. Neurolysis of the inferior hypogastric plexus may be useful for the treatment of pelvic and perineal pain caused by cancer. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility, safety and efficacy of the newly introduced inferior hypogastric plexus block, performed using a trans-sacral approach, for the relief of cancer-related pelvic and perineal pain. METHODS: A total of 20 patients with cancer pain in the pelvis and/or perineum were injected with 6 mL to 8 mL of 10% phenol bilaterally by passing a spinal needle through the sacral foramen to perform the inferior hypogastric block. Pain intensity (measured using a visual analogue scale), sleep score, activity score, psychological score and oral morphine consumption pre- and postprocedure were measured. RESULTS: Two of the 20 patients died during the follow-up period and were, therefore, excluded from the study. All patients presented with cancer-related pelvic, perineal or pelviperineal pain. Pain scores were reduced from a mean (± SD) of 7.22±1.31 preprocedurally to 4.06±1.73 one week postprocedurally (P<0.05). In addition, the mean consumption of morphine (delivered via 30 mg sustained-release morphine tablets) was reduced from 106.67±32.90 mg to 61.67±40.48 mg after one week (P<0.05). No complications or serious side effects were encountered during or after the block. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The approach provides a good alternative technique for the treatment of low pelvic and perineal cancer-related pain. Additional studies are required for evaluation and refinement of the technique using other radiological techniques.

Efficacy of intrathecally administered dexmedetomidine versus dexmedetomidine with fentanyl in patients undergoing major abdominal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Most of the clinical experience gained in the use of intrathecal alpha-2- adrenoceptor agonists has been described with clonidine. Human studies using a combination of intrathecal dexmedetomidine and local anesthetics are lacking. OBJECTIVES: A safety investigation and comparison of the analgesic efficacy of intrathecally administered dexmedetomidine or dexmedetomidine combined with fentanyl in patients undergoing major abdominal cancer surgery. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind trial. SETTING: Academic medical center. METHODS: Ninety patients were randomly assigned to receive intrathecally either 10 mg bupivacaine 0.5% (control group, n = 30), or 10 mg bupivacaine 0.5% plus 5 µg dexmedetomidine (dexmedetomidine group, n = 30), or 10 mg bupivacaine 0.5% plus 5 µg dexmedetomidine and 25 µg fentanyl (dexmedetomidine= group, n = 30). Assessment parameters included hemodynamics, sedation score, pain severity, time of first analgesics request, total analgesic consumption, and side effects in the first 24 hours. RESULTS: The mean intraoperative heart rate was significantly reduced in the dexmedetomidine group (P < 0.05) and the dexmedetomidine= group (P < 0.05) compared with the control group. Also, there was a significant reduction in mean intraoperative systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the dexmedetomidine group (P < 0.05) and the dexmedetomidine= group (P < 0.05) compared with the control group, with no significant differences in postoperative hemodynamics or sedation scores among all the study groups. The mean visual analog scale scores showed a significant reduction immediately and at 12 hours postoperatively in both the dexmedetomidine and dexmedetomidine= groups compared to the control group. The mean time of the first analgesic request was significantly prolonged in the dexmedetomidine group (3.30 ± 0.87 hours, P < 0.01) and the dexmedetomidine= group (5.41 ± 1.23 hours, P < 0.01) compared with the control group (0.23 ± 0.11 hours). Moreover, postoperative tramadol consumption was significantly reduced in the dexmedetomidine (142.85 ± 13.04 mg, P < 0.01) and the dexmedetomidine= (131.25 ± 11.96 mg, P < 0.01) groups, compared with the control group (310.0 ± 12.08 mg). No significant serious adverse effects were recorded during the study. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its sample size. CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine 5 µg given intrathecally improves the quality and the duration of postoperative analgesia and also provides an analgesic sparing effect in patients undergoing major abdominal cancer surgery. Furthermore, the addition of intrathecal fentanyl 25 µg has no valuable clinical effect.