OBJECTIVE: To compare dexmedetomidine with remifentanil in desflurane based ambulatory gynecologic laparoscopic surgery, in respect to its effects on orientation, discharge time, nausea-vomiting, and postoperative analgesic need. METHODS:Sixty 20-40 year old ASA I-II patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic surgery were randomized into 2 groups. This study was performed in the operating theaters of the Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe, Turkey in 2004 as a prospective, randomized, and double blinded study. The remifentanil group (group R), and dexmedetomidine group (group D) received a bolus of 1 microg/kg over 10 minutes, followed by 0.2 microg/kg/minute peroperative infusion of remifentanil, and 0.4 microg/kg/hour of dexmedetomidine. Hemodynamic parameters, time to extubation, and to orientation to person, place, and date, postoperative nausea, vomiting, pain, analgesic requirement at home, and satisfaction with anesthesia were recorded. RESULTS:Demographic, hemodynamic data, postoperative pain scores, and discharge time were similar in both groups. Time to extubation, to orientation to person, to place and date were shorter in group R. Postoperative nausea, vomiting, and analgesic requirements at home were less in group D. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that dexmedetomidine infusion causes a relatively slow recovery with reduced postoperative nausea, vomiting, and analgesic requirements, and similar hemodynamics compared to remifentanil in ambulatory laparoscopic surgeries. It may be an alternative to remifentanil in ambulatory anesthesia.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare dexmedetomidine with remifentanil in desflurane based ambulatory gynecologic laparoscopic surgery, in respect to its effects on orientation, discharge time, nausea-vomiting, and postoperative analgesic need. METHODS: Sixty 20-40 year old ASA I-II patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic surgery were randomized into 2 groups. This study was performed in the operating theaters of the Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe, Turkey in 2004 as a prospective, randomized, and double blinded study. The remifentanil group (group R), and dexmedetomidine group (group D) received a bolus of 1 microg/kg over 10 minutes, followed by 0.2 microg/kg/minute peroperative infusion of remifentanil, and 0.4 microg/kg/hour of dexmedetomidine. Hemodynamic parameters, time to extubation, and to orientation to person, place, and date, postoperative nausea, vomiting, pain, analgesic requirement at home, and satisfaction with anesthesia were recorded. RESULTS: Demographic, hemodynamic data, postoperative pain scores, and discharge time were similar in both groups. Time to extubation, to orientation to person, to place and date were shorter in group R. Postoperative nausea, vomiting, and analgesic requirements at home were less in group D. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that dexmedetomidine infusion causes a relatively slow recovery with reduced postoperative nausea, vomiting, and analgesic requirements, and similar hemodynamics compared to remifentanil in ambulatory laparoscopic surgeries. It may be an alternative to remifentanil in ambulatory anesthesia.