https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2298-566X
![Sample our Bioscience journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5925/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Bioscience.jpg"})
Abstract
Background and Aim
Ultrasound popliteal sciatic nerve block (UPSNB) is commonly performed in foot and ankle surgery. This study aims to assess the use of dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone as adjuvants in UPSNB for hallux valgus (HV) surgery, comparing their efficacy in producing motor and sensory block and controlling postoperative pain. The adverse event rate was also evaluated.
Methods
This mono-centric retrospective study included 62 adult patients undergoing HV surgery: 30 patients received lidocaine 2% 200 mg, ropivacaine 0.5% 50 mg and dexamethasone 4 mg (Group 1), whereas 32 patients received lidocaine 2% 200 mg, ropivacaine 0.5% 50 mg, and dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/Kg (Group 2). At first, the visual analogue scale (VAS) was evaluated after 48 hours. The other outcomes were time to motor block regression, evaluation of the first analgesic drug intake, analgesic effect, adverse effects (hemodynamic disorders, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV)) and patient satisfaction. The continuous data were analyzed with student’s t-test and the continuous one with χ2. Statistical significance was set at a p-value lower than 0.05.
Results
No significant difference was found in VAS after 48 hours (4.5 ± 1.6 vs 4.7 ± 1.7, p = 0.621) to motor block regression (18.9 ± 6.0 vs 18.7 ± 6, p = 0.922). The number of patients that took their first analgesic drug in the first 48 h (p = 0.947 at 6 hours; p = 0.421 at 12 hours; p = 0.122 at 24 hours and p = 0.333 at 48 hours) were not significant. A low and similar incidence of intraoperative hemodynamic disorders was recorded in both groups (hypotension p = 0.593; bradycardia p = 0.881). Neither PONV nor other complication was found. Patients in Group 1 reported a lower degree of interference with sleep (p = 0.001), less interference with daily activities (P = 0.002) and with the affective sphere (P = 0.015) along with a more satisfactory postoperative pain management (p < 0.001) as compared to Group 2.
Conclusion
No significant differences were observed in the duration of motor and sensory blockade between patients in both groups. Additionally, both groups showed good pain control with a low rate of adverse effects, even if there was no clinical difference between the groups. However, patients who received dexamethasone reported experiencing less interference with their sleep, daily activities and overall emotional well-being, and overall pain control.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the reviewer, Anna Onza, for the effort and the time spent in the linguistic revision of the manuscript.
Author Contributions
All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas; took part in drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.