Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 16095

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2024 | Month : November | Volume : 18 | Issue : 11 | Page : UC18 - UC22 Full Version

Efficacy of Dexamethasone versus Dexmedetomidine as an Adjuvant to Bupivacaine for Bilateral Superficial Cervical Plexus Block in Thyroid Surgeries: A Randomised Clinical Trial


Published: November 1, 2024 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2024/74960.20297
Vanishree Deshpande, Vijay Katti, Santosh Alalamath

1. Junior Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, BLDE (Deemed to be University) Shri BM Patil Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Vijayapur, Karnataka, India. 2. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, BLDE (Deemed to be University) Shri BM Patil Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Vijayapur, Karnataka, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, BLDE (Deemed to be University) Shri BM Patil Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Vijayapur, Karnataka, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Santosh Alalamath,
Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, BLDE (Deemed to be University) Shri BM Patil Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Vijayapur-586103, Karnataka, India.
E-mail: drsantosh2021@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Thyroid surgeries are among the most frequently performed endocrine surgeries globally. Pain control is one of the many challenges faced by perioperative physicians in post-thyroid surgery patients; if, left untreated, it can progress to chronic pain. Regional anaesthesia, such as Bilateral Superficial Cervical Plexus Block (BSCPB), can provide excellent analgesia in the initial postoperative period without the side effects of systemic analgesics.

Aim: To assess postoperative pain using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores at various intervals upto 24 hours postoperatively and to evaluate the duration of the superficial cervical plexus block. Secondary objectives include assessing intraoperative haemodynamic stability, analgesic consumption, and block-related complications.

Materials and Methods: This randomised double-blinded clinical trial was conducted in the Department of Anaesthesiology at a teritary care centre, BLDE (Deemed to be University) Shri BM Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre in Vijayapur, Karanataka, India, from April 2023 to March 2024 on 74 American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grades I-II patients undergoing elective thyroid procedures were randomly assigned to two groups: Group Dexmedetomidine (DexD) (n=37), which received US-guided BSCPB with 10 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine and 25 mcg of dexmedetomidine on both sides; and Group Dexamethasone (DexA) (n=37), which received US-guided BSCPB with 10 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine and 4 mg of dexamethasone on both sides. Intraoperative blood pressure, Heart Rate (HR), and Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) were measured at predefined time periods. Postoperative VAS scores were assessed at predefined intervals, along with the time taken for the first analgesic request and the cumulative postoperative analgesic dose consumed. Student’s t-test and Chi-square test were used for data comparison.

Results: The mean age in Group DexD was 42.59±8.64 years, and in Group DexA it was 45.40±8.96 years. Group DexD had significantly lower postoperative VAS scores for upto eight hours (2.108 vs. 2.72; p-value=0.0002), and the time before the first rescue analgesia request was significantly longer than that of Group DexA (688.37±55.75 min vs. 593.64±72.56 min; p-value=0.001). The total postoperative analgesic utilisation in the first 24 hours was significantly lower in Group DexD compared to Group DexA (81.08±20.754 mg vs. 104.17±44.921 mg; p-value=0.006). Group DexA experienced a lower incidence of nausea (p-value=0.002) and vomiting (p-value=0.001) in the postoperative period.

Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine performed better than dexamethasone when added to bupivacaine for BSCPB for pain management during the postoperative period in patients undergoing thyroid surgical procedures. However, when added, dexamethasone has the advantage of reducing nausea and vomiting in the postoperative period.

Keywords

Postoperative pain, Regional anaesthesia, Thyroidectomy, Visual analogue scale

Surgical interventions carried out to reduce human suffering result in inevitable consequences such as pain and distress to the patient. Controlling acute pain that follows tissue injury after surgery is important during the postoperative period as well as in preventing chronic postsurgical pain, which can develop in almost 10% of patients (1). Ineffective pain management can result in negative clinical and psychological outcomes such as restlessness causing hypoxemia, coronary ischaemia, myocardial infarction, poor wound healing, insomnia, decreased quality of life, and demoralisation, which further increases morbidity and mortality (2). Thyroidectomy is one of the most frequent surgical treatments performed for various thyroid pathologies that cause mild to moderate pain during the first 24 hours postsurgery, hence requiring adequate postoperative pain relief to augment patient recovery and satisfaction (3),(4). Thyroid surgeries, generally carried out under general anaesthesia, require relatively deeper anaesthesia due to the combined effects of surgery and frequent stimuli to the trachea due to movements of the endotracheal tube throughout surgery and can lead to complications such as swallowing difficulty, sore throat, nausea, and vomiting along with pain (5). Postoperative pain management is usually by either administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, which may be ineffective in pain relief and increase the risk of bleeding postoperatively, or opioids, which have adverse effects like nausea, vomiting, sedation, and inadequate respiration, worsening the clinical condition of the patient (6).

Loco-regional methods of anaesthesia can alleviate postoperative pain and prevent sensitisation of the central and peripheral nervous system due to a longer duration of action, thus preventing the development of chronic pain without the side effects of systemic analgesics (7),(8),(9). A recently introduced highly selective alpha-2 agonist, dexmedetomidine, has been evaluated as an adjunct in peripheral nerve blocks and is reported to be safe and effective in prolonging the action of the peripheral blocks (10),(11).

Glucocorticoids have a prerequisite to bind to ligands within the cell and be transported into the nucleus, where they have an effect on Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) transcription causing anti-inflammatory action. Dexamethasone is proven to amplify the action of local anaesthetics by modifying the function of potassium channels in the excitable cells, which halts the transmission along with causing local vasoconstriction, hence prolonging the duration of nerve blocks (12).

Literature on the comparison of the effect of Dexamethasone and Dexmedetomidine as an Adjuvant to Bupivacaine for BSCPB is limited. Hence, the present study aimed at evaluating the influence of adjuvants on the block and comparing the effects of adjuvants on intraoperative haemodynamic stability, postoperative VAS scores, duration of the block, and postoperative analgesic consumption.

The primary objective of present study was to assess postoperative VAS scores in both groups and estimate the duration of the block. The secondary objective was to monitor the haemodynamic stability intraoperatively, study the cumulative dose of rescue analgesia utilised in the postoperative hours, and observe any complications.

Material and Methods

The present randomised, double-blinded clinical trial was conducted in the Department of Anesthesiolgy at teritary care centre, BLDE (Deemed to be University) Shri BM Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre in Vijayapur, Karnataka, India for a duration of one year, from April 2023 to March 2024, after approval from the Institutional Ethical Committee (BLDE (DU)/IEC/ 790/ 2022-23). The study is registered with Clinical Trail of Registry India (CTRI) (CTRI/2023/03/050683).

Inclusion criteria: Patients between the age of 18 to 60 years, classified as ASA grades I-II, and scheduled for elective thyroid surgeries under general anaesthesis were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patient refusal, impaired thyroid function test, local site infection, allergy to drugs used in present study, coagulopathies, patients with heart block, or patients on adrenoreceptor agonist or antagonist treatment were excluded from the study.

Sample size calculation: A total 74 patients scheduled for elective thyroid surgery were randomised by computer-generated slips into two groups named DexD and DexA. The sample size was calculated using G* Power version 3.1.9.4 software as 74 to achieve a power of 99% for detecting a difference in means with a 5% level of significance.

Study Procedure

Patients were sensitised about the study method, procedures, and educated about the VAS during the preanaesthetic exam. Written informed consent was obtained. Patients were randomised using a computer-generated slip. After confirming nil per oral status, patients were shifted to the operating theatre. Patients were monitored for Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressure (SBP, DBP), along with Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), oxygen saturation, and HR. Baseline vitals were noted. Patients received premedication including midazolam (0.02 mg/kg), ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg), and glycopyrrolate (0.02 mg/kg). After preoxygenation, general anaesthesia was induced with fentanyl (2 μg/kg), propofol (2 mg/kg), and atracurium (0.5 mg/kg). Patients were intubated and ventilated. General anaesthesia was maintained with isoflurane, oxygen, nitrous oxide, and atracurium as per requirement. Bilateral superficial cervical plexus block (BSCPB) was administered under ultrasound guidance to all patients after proper positioning, before the surgical incision. The DexD group received an ultrasound-guided block of 10 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine with 25 μg of dexmedetomidine as the adjuvant on both sides, totaling 50 mcg (13). The DexA group received 10 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine with 4 mg of dexamethasone on both sides, totaling 8 mg (12). The drug was prepared by the anaesthesia technician according to computer-generated allotment, and the block was performed by the anaesthesiologist. The patient and performing anaesthesiologist were blinded to the drug administered. Intraoperatively, HR, SBP, DBP, and MAP were monitored every 10 minutes after 30 minutes from the time of the block upto 120 minutes. At the completion of the procedure, muscle relaxation was reversed with neostigmine and glycopyrrolate, and patients were extubated. VAS scores were assessed for both groups at 30 minutes, 1, 2, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours postoperatively. Diclofenac 75 mg (14) in 100 mL normal saline intravenous infusion was used as rescue analgesia when the VAS scores were more than 4. The time period before the first rescue analgesia request was documented along with the total analgesic dose consumed postoperatively within 24 hours for both groups. Any complications such as nausea, vomiting, hoarseness of voice, and throat discomfort were recorded (Table/Fig 1).

Statistical Analysis

The data was entered into a Microsoft Excel sheet, and statistical analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 20.0). The results were presented as Mean±Standard Deviation (SD), percentages, and bar graphs. An independent sample t-test was utilised for normally distributed continuous variables. The Mann-Whitney’s U test was used for variables that were not normally distributed. The Chi-square test/Fisher’s-Exact test was applied to compare categorical variables. Statistical significance was considered if the p-value was <0.05.

Results

The age of participants in both groups was comparable. The mean age in Group DexD was 42.59±8.64 years, and in Group DexA it was 45.40±8.96 years with a p-value of 0.219. Most of the patients were between 31-60 years of age. The female population was higher 65 (87.9%) than the male population 9 (12.1%) in present study. The comparison of the male to female ratio between the groups was assessed using a Chi-square test with a p-value of 0.649, which was not significant (Table/Fig 2).

Mean VAS scores between the two groups showed a statistically significant difference. Group DexD had significantly lower VAS scores at 30 minutes, 1, 2, 6, and 8 hours with a p-value <0.05 (Table/Fig 3).

When the mean time period before the first rescue analgesic dose request (in minutes) between groups was compared, the data was statistically valid with a p-value of 0.001. In Group DexD, the mean time taken in minutes before the first rescue analgesic dose was 688.37±55.75, and in Group DexA it was 593.64±72.56. Group DexD had significantly longer postoperative analgesia when compared to Group DexA (Table/Fig 4).

Intraoperative SBP, DBP, MAP, and HR were measured every 10 minutes starting from 30 minutes from the block time till the completion of the procedure or up to 120 minutes, whichever was the earliest. The mean SBPs had a statistically notable difference between the two groups. Group DexD showed significantly lower mean SBPs at all intervals (p-value <0.05). When mean DBPs were compared, Group DexD had significantly lower mean DBPs at 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80 minutes than Group DexA with a p-value <0.05 (Table/Fig 5). Similarly, the mean MAP was suggestively lesser in the DexD group when compared with that of the DexA group at each time interval with a p-value less than 0.05. The mean HR at all time intervals was substantially lesser in Group DexD compared to Group DexA with a p-value <0.05 (Table/Fig 6).

The cumulative dose of analgesic (diclofenac in mg) consumed in 24 hours in Group DexD was calculated to be 81.08±20.754 mg. The cumulative dose of analgesic (diclofenac in mg) required in 24 hours in Group DexA was calculated to be 104.17±44.921 mg. Group DexD required significantly less dose of analgesic with a p-value of 0.006 (Table/Fig 7).

Total 20 (54.05%) patients in Group DexD reported nausea while only 3 (8.1%) patients in Group DexA complained of nausea postoperatively. Group DexA was observed to have a significantly reduced incidence of nausea postoperatively with a p-value of 0.002 (Table/Fig 8).

16 (43.24%) patients in Group DexD had complaints of vomiting, while none of the patients in Group DexA reported any episodes of vomiting postoperatively. Group DexA was observed to have a significantly reduced incidence of vomiting postoperatively, with a p-value of 0.001 (Table/Fig 8).

In Group DexD, 6 (16.20%) patients reported having throat discomfort, while 31 (83.80%) did not report any. In Group DexA, 10 (27%) patients experienced throat discomfort, and 27 (73%) did not experience such symptoms. The occurrence of throat discomfort was similar between the two groups (p-value=0.259).

In Group DexD, 1 (2.7%) patient complained of hoarseness of voice, while 36 (97.30%) did not have such complications. In Group DexA, none of the patients complained of hoarseness of voice. The incidence of hoarseness of voice was comparable between the groups (p-value=0.314).

Discussion

The present trial demonstrated that dexmedetomidine effectively prolonged the duration of action of BSCPB (p-value=0.001) when used as an adjuvant to Bupivacaine, with significantly better haemodynamic stability, lower postoperative VAS scores up to eight hours (p-value=0.0002), and less postoperative analgesic consumption (p-value=0.006). However, postoperative nausea (p-value=0.002) and vomiting (p-value=0.001) incidence were significantly reduced by the addition of dexamethasone to bupivacaine.

In present study, intraoperative haemodynamic variables such as SBP, MAP, and HR were significantly lower in Group DexD than in Group DexA at all intervals, along with significantly lower DBP in Group DexD at 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80-minute intervals. Jain N et al., and Hassan AH et al., in their studies, described the same trends in the haemodynamic parameters being lower in the dexmedetomidine group compared to the dexamethasone group (15),(16).

The mean VAS scores between the two groups were noted to be significantly lower in Group DexD than in Group DexA at intervals of 30 minutes, 1, 2, 6, and 8 hours, whereas they were comparable at 12 and 24 hours. The same is reflected in a trial conducted by Thakur J et al., comparing dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone as adjuvants to bupivacaine for TAP block in 120 patients and observed lower VAS scores in patients who received dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant (17). A different observation was made in two different trials conducted by Jain N et al., and Gao Z et al., who observed comparable VAS scores when they assessed dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone as adjuvants with bupivacaine for BSCPB and Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB), respectively (15),(18).

The observations regarding the analgesic efficacies of the mentioned adjuvants exhibit inconsistency in results when the existing literature is reviewed. In the present study, the mean time period between the administration of BSCPB and the first rescue analgesic dose request was observed to be prolonged in Group DexD (688±55.75 min) compared to Group DexA (593.64±72.56 min) with statistical significance (p-value=0.01). Hence, dexmedetomidine prolonged the time period before the first rescue analgesic dose, providing a longer period of analgesia than dexamethasone when added as an ancillary to local anaesthetics for BSCPB. Similar observations were made by Mohammed Ali DS et al., in their study conducted on 84 female patients undergoing Total Abdominal Hysterectomy (TAH) (19). The study concluded that dexmedetomidine, when compared to dexamethasone as an adjunct to bupivacaine for ESPB, prolonged the duration of analgesia. In line with the observations made in this trial, Singla N et al., observed that adding dexmedetomidine to bupivacaine for TAP block resulted in a prolonged duration of analgesia (20). However, research conducted by Adinarayanan S et al., had a contrasting conclusion. In this study, it was observed that dexamethasone, when added to bupivacaine, proved to be superior to dexmedetomidine and lengthened the duration of the brachial plexus block (supraclavicular approach) (21). Similarly, research by Elbahrawy K and EL- Deeb A determined that when ropivacaine 0.2% was supplemented with dexamethasone for BSCPB, it resulted in an extended duration of the block and decreased the systemic analgesia requirement (22).

The mean total postoperative analgesic dose with diclofenac consumed in the first 24 hours was significantly lower in Group DexD (81.08±20.75 mg) than in Group DexA (104.17±44.92 mg) with a p-value of 0.006. Thakur J et al., in their trial made identical observations (17). The number of rescue analgesic doses requested was significantly lower in patients who were administered dexmedetomidine at 1 mcg/kg with bupivacaine for TAP block than in those who received dexamethasone at 0.1 mg/kg. Hassan AH et al., Mohammed Ali DS et al., also had similar outcomes in their respective trials (16),(19). In line with the study by Jain N et al., (15), it was observed that when dexamethasone was the adjuvant to bupivacaine in patients belonging to Group DexA, there was a significant alleviation in the incidence of nausea (p-value=0.002) and vomiting (p-value=0.001) postoperatively when compared to Group DexD, who received dexmedetomidine. Incidences of throat discomfort and hoarseness of voice were statistically insignificant between both groups (p-value >0.05).

The strength of the present study was that the BSCPB was performed under Ultrasonography (USG) guidance, which ensured precision and accuracy with fewer chances of complications. The duration of the block was increased due to the addition of the adjuvants. Intraoperative haemodynamic stability was well maintained throughout the surgery.

Limitation(s)

The present study is single-centred, with a limited sample size. Secondly, present trial only studied specific doses of drugs-0.5% bupivacaine, 25 mcg dexmedetomidine, and 4 mg dexamethasone. The effects of the drugs and the block need further research in patients of ASA III and IV undergoing thyroid surgery. The impact of BSCPB on intraoperative anaesthetic consumption, effects of different doses of adjuvants on block characteristics, and other adverse effects of the block are potential areas for exploration in future studies. An extensive trial involving multiple centers along with larger sample sizes is required to increase the generalisability of the results to a broader population.

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine, as an adjuvant to Bupivacaine for BSCPB, considerably prolonged the duration of the block with lower VAS scores, improved intraoperative haemodynamic stability, and reduced postoperative analgesic consumption compared to dexamethasone. However, dexamethasone, as an adjuvant, significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Overall, BSCPB is an effective locoregional technique that can be used as one of the postoperative analgesic modalities for patients undergoing thyroid surgeries. When used with adjuvants, it has a prolonged duration of action.

References

1.
Small C, Laycock H. Acute postoperative pain management. British Journal of Surgery. 2020;107(2):e70-e80. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11477. [crossref][PubMed]
2.
Apfelbaum Jeffrey L, Connie C, Mehta Shilpa S, Gan Tong J. Postoperative pain experience: Results from a national survey suggest postoperative pain continues to be undermanaged. Anaesthesia & Analgesia. 2023;97(2):534-40. Doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000068822.10113.9E. [crossref][PubMed]
3.
Manjeri MP, Minshad M, Manjeri PO. Postoperative analgesic efficacy of 0.25% ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine versus dexamethasone as an adjuvant in bilateral superficial cervical plexus block for thyroidectomy under general anaesthesia among the cardiac patients-A comparative randomized clinical study. Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research. 2023;14(12):3539-46: Doi: 10.4807/jcdr.2023.14.12.405.
4.
Pham MQ, Nguyen AX, Tran TTP. Bilateral superficial cervical plexus block improves pain control after thyroidectomy under general anaesthesia: A randomized, double-blind, clinical trial. Anaesth Pain Intensive Care. 2023;27(2):214-19. Doi: 10.35975/apic.v27i2.2185. [crossref]
5.
Aweke Z, Sahile WA, Abiy S, Ayalew N, Kassa AA. Effectiveness of bilateral superficial cervical plexus block as part of postoperative analgesia for patients undergoing thyroidectomy in Empress Zewditu Memorial Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Anaesthesiology Reseach and Practice. 2018;2018:6107674. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6107674 [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Goulart TF, Araujo-Filho VJF de, Cernea CR, Matos LL. Superficial cervical plexus blockade improves pain control after thyroidectomy: A randomized controlled trial. Clinics [Internet]. 2019;74:e605. Available from: https://doi.org/10.6061/ clinics/2019/e605. [crossref][PubMed]
7.
Ozgun M, Hosten T, Solak M. Effect of bilateral superficial cervical plexus block on postoperative analgesic consumption in patients undergoing thyroid surgery. Cureus. 2022;14(1):e21212. Doi: 10.7759/cureus.21212. [crossref][PubMed]
8.
Bajwa SJS. Managing acute postoperative pain: Advances, challenges and constraints. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2017;61(3):189-91. Doi: 10.4103/ija. IJA_110_17. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Deepika V, Ahuja V, Thapa D, Gombar S, Gupta N. Evaluation of analgesic efficacy of superficial cervical plexus block in patients undergoing modified radical mastoidectomy: A randomised controlled trial. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2021;65(Suppl 3):S115-S120. Doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_339_21. [crossref][PubMed]
10.
Kaygusuz K, Kol IO, Duger C, Gursoy S, Ozturk H, Kayacan U, et al. Effects of adding dexmedetomidine to levobupivacaine in axillary brachial plexus block. Current Therapeutic Research. 2012;73(3):103-11. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.curtheres.2012.03.001. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Santosh BS, Mehandale SG. Does dexmedetomidine improve analgesia of superficial cervical plexus block for thyroid surgery? Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2016;60(1):34-38. Doi: 10.4103/0019-5049.174797. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
Choi S, Rodseth R, McCartney CJL. Effects of dexamethasone as a local anaesthetic adjuvant for brachial plexus block: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2014;112(3):427-39. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aet417. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Gómez-Ríos MÃ, Abad-Gurumeta A. Dexmedetomidine as an adjunct for single-injection peripheral nerve blocks: An off-label empowerment. Minerva Anestesiol. 2024;90(5):356-58. Doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.24.18162-X. [crossref]
14.
McNicol ED, Ferguson MC, Schumann R. Single-dose intravenous diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;8(8):CD012498. Doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012498.pub2. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Jain N, Rathee R, Jain K, Garg DK, Patodi V, Khare A. Postoperative analgesic efficacy of 0.25% ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine versus dexamethasone as an adjuvant in bilateral superficial cervical plexus block for thyroidectomy under general anaesthesia-A comparative randomized clinical study. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2023;67(3):269-76. Doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_272_22. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Hassan AH, Amer IA, Abdelkareem AM. Comparative study between dexmedetomidine versus dexamethasone as adjuvants to levobupivacaine for cervical plexus block in patients undergoing thyroid operation. prospective-randomized clinical trial. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2021;84(1):1638-43. Doi: 10.21608/ejhm.2021.175172. [crossref]
17.
Thakur J, Gupta B, Gupta A, Verma RK, Verma A, Shah P. A prospective randomized study to compare dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone as an adjunct to bupivacaine in transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia in caesarean delivery. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2019;8:4903-08. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770. ijrcog20195342. [crossref]
18.
Gao Z, Xiao Y, Wang Q, Li Y. Comparison of dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone as adjuvant for ropivacaine in ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block for video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy surgery: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Transl Med. 2019;7(22):668. Doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.10.74. [crossref][PubMed]
19.
Mohammed Ali DS, Salama AM, Abaza KA, Ahmed FM. Dexamethasone versus dexmedetomidine as adjuvant to bupivacaine in ultrasound guided erector spinae plane block for analgesia in total 121 abdominal hysterectomy. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2022;88(1):4051-56. Doi: 10.21608/ ejhm.2022.254083. [crossref]
20.
Singla N, Garg K, Jain R, Malhotra A, Singh MR, Grewal A. Analgesic efficacy of dexamethasone versus dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to ropivacaine in ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative pain relief in caesarean section: A prospective randomised controlled study. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2021;65(Suppl 3):S121-S126. Doi: 10.4103/ija. IJA_228_21. [crossref][PubMed]
21.
Adinarayanan S, Chandran R, Swaminathan S, Srinivasan G, Bidkar PU. Comparison of dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine as adjuvants to bupivacaine in supraclavicular brachial plexus block: A prospective randomized study. Indian J Clin Anaesth. 2019;6(4):523-27. Available from: https://doi. org/10.18231/j.ijca.2019.102. [crossref]
22.
Elbahrawy K, El-Deeb A. Superficial cervical plexus block in thyroid surgery and the effect of adding dexamethasone: A randomized, double-blinded study. Research and Opinion in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care. 2018;5(2):98-102. Doi: 10.4103/roaic.roaic_45_17.[crossref]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/74960.20297

Date of Submission: Aug 20, 2024
Date of Peer Review: Sep 10, 2024
Date of Acceptance: Oct 08, 2024
Date of Publishing: Nov 01, 2024

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Aug 21, 2024
• Manual Googling: Sep 21, 2024
• iThenticate Software: Oct 05, 2024 (10%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 7

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com