A prospective, randomized, double blind, systemic controlled trial to compare analgesic efficacy of clonidine and fentanyl in supraclavicular block with 0.75% ropivacaine

Journal Title: Indian Journal of Clinical Anaesthesia - Year 2018, Vol 5, Issue 4

Abstract

Introduction and Object Fentanyl and clonidine mostly used as adjuvant to improve quality and duration of nerve block In present study we compared clonidine and fentanyl perineurally and systemically in Supraclavicular Brachial plexus blockMaterials and Methods Sixty eight patients were randomly assigned into four equal groups scheduled for upper limb surgery They received the drugs in Supraclavicular block and intravenous route as below Group A 24 ml 075 ropivacaine 1 ml fentanyl 50gml 5ml normal saline in block and 1ml normal saline intravenously Group B 24 ml 075 ropivacaine 6ml normal saline in block and 1ml fentanyl 50g ml intravenously Group C 24 ml 075 ropivacaine 1ml clonidine 150gml 5ml normal saline in block and 1ml normal saline intravenously Group D 24ml 075 ropivacaine 6ml normal saline in block and 1ml clonidine 150gml intravenouslyResults Onset of sensory and motor block was significantly earlier in Group C 1247257 min 1800346 min than in Group A 1465341 min 1994261 min respectively p005 between Group A 741094hrs and Group B 735093hrs while it was prolonged in Group C 894097 hrs than Group D 812122 hrs pConclusion Fentanyl perineurally or systemically administered have comparable results while perineural clonidine offered prolonged duration of analgesia better than when it was used intravenously suggesting its local actionKeywords Supraclavicular Block Ropivacaine Clonidine Fentanyl

Authors and Affiliations

Garima Tyagi, Muni Ram Meena, Hemraj Tungria, Anisha Banu, Lalit Kumar Raiger

Keywords

Related Articles

Comparison of dexmedetomidine versus esmolol (Intravenously) in reduction of cardiovascular responses to intubation during induction of general anesthesia- A randomised clinical trial

Introduction and Aim: The cardiovascular changes to airway manipulation like tachycardia and hypertension occur secondary to catecholamine secretion. These changes make less effects on normal patients but can be hazardou...

A comparative study between dexmedetomidine, clonidine and magnesium sulfate in attenuating hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation – a randomised study

Introduction: The stress responses to laryngoscopy comprising of elevation in heart rate and rise in systolic and diastolic pressure are well known. The potential for life threatening complications associated with these...

Low dose ketamine pretreatment for alleviation of propofol injection pain- A study

Introduction One of the most important disadvantages of propofol injection is intense burning pain The present study was conducted with the aim to assess the effect of low dose Ketamine 100 gkg in the alleviation of pain...

Comparative study of psoas compartment block and sciatic nerve block with that of spinal block anesthesia for lower extremity surgeries

Aim and Objectives: Aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of the block, hemodynamic effects, postoperative analgesia and side effects of combined psoas compartment sciatic nerve block with continuous spina...

Palonosetron-dexamethasone versus ondansetron-dexamethasone to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a preliminary, randomized, double blinded study

Introduction: Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is associated with wound dehiscence, pulmonary aspiration, electrolyte disturbances, delayed recovery and patient dis-satisfaction. The present study was aimed to c...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP476499
  • DOI 10.18231/2394-4994.2018.0099
  • Views 98
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Garima Tyagi, Muni Ram Meena, Hemraj Tungria, Anisha Banu, Lalit Kumar Raiger (2018). A prospective, randomized, double blind, systemic controlled trial to compare analgesic efficacy of clonidine and fentanyl in supraclavicular block with 0.75% ropivacaine. Indian Journal of Clinical Anaesthesia, 5(4), 518-522. https://europub.co.uk./articles/-A-476499