March 2012
Volume 53, Issue 14
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   March 2012
Comparison of Dexmedetomidine Sedation vs. Propofol in Vitreoretinal Surgery Under Local Block
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Linda Y. Huang
    Ophthalmology and Visual Science,
    Univ of Med & Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey
  • Jing Jing Feng
    Ophthalmology and Visual Science,
    Univ of Med & Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey
  • Marcelino Potian
    Anesthesiology,
    Univ of Med & Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey
  • Anuradha Patel
    Anesthesiology,
    Univ of Med & Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey
  • Catherine Schoenberg
    Anesthesiology,
    Univ of Med & Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey
  • Xiuru Sun
    Univ of Med & Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey
  • Dennis Grech
    Anesthesiology,
    Univ of Med & Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey
  • Neelakshi Bhagat
    Ophthalmology and Visual Science,
    Univ of Med & Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Linda Y. Huang, None; Jing Jing Feng, None; Marcelino Potian, None; Anuradha Patel, None; Catherine Schoenberg, None; Xiuru Sun, None; Dennis Grech, None; Neelakshi Bhagat, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  Humira, Inc
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science March 2012, Vol.53, 5382. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Linda Y. Huang, Jing Jing Feng, Marcelino Potian, Anuradha Patel, Catherine Schoenberg, Xiuru Sun, Dennis Grech, Neelakshi Bhagat; Comparison of Dexmedetomidine Sedation vs. Propofol in Vitreoretinal Surgery Under Local Block. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2012;53(14):5382.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine (dex) vs. propofol (prop) in vitreoretinal surgery under local block.

Methods: : An IRB approved double-masked, prospective randomized study. Enrollment criteria include subjects between ages 18 and 65 years, ASA 1-3, with good liver and renal function. All procedures were performed UMDNJ's outpatient same day surgery center by the same surgeon (NB) under retrobulbar block administered using sub-Tenon approach. Patients are randomized into group P (prop) and group D (dex). Group P receives a of 1 mg/kg of prop intravenously (IV) followed by an infusion of 25-100 ug/kg/min. Group D receives a bolus of 0.5 ug/kg IV of dex followed by an infusion of 0.2-0.7 ug/kg/hr. T-test and Mann-Whitney test were used for statistical analysis.

Conclusions: : In the 38 patients recruited, dex provided adequate sedation, patient and surgeon satisfaction, and hemodynamic stability, with no difference in incidence of adverse effects compared to prop. The only significant parameters between groups P and D were in systolic and diastolic BP and HR in the PACU. There were not any clinically significant events that warranted the use of rescue medications for bradycardia or hypotension. No patients experience post-operative nausea or vomiting and none required hospitalization. The mean patient and surgeon satisfaction was between good and excellent in both groups.

Clinical Trial: : http://www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01001429

Keywords: vitreoretinal surgery • retinal detachment 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×