A Comparative Study of Intrathecal Dexmedetomidine and Fentanyl as an Adjuvant to Bupivacaine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the use of intrathecal adjuvants has gained popularity. The quality of spinal anaesthesia is improved with addition of opioids and other drugs but no drug is without side effects. The aim of this study was to compare the addition of either Dexmedetomidine or Fentanyl to intrathecal Bupivacaine as regards the onset and duration of sensory and motor block, hemodynamic effects, postoperative analgesia and adverse effects of either drug. Sixty patients with ASA grade I and II scheduled for lower limb and lower abdominal surgeries were randomly allocated to two groups (30 patients each): Group D received 2.5 ml 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine and 5 g of Dexmedetomidine intrathecally. Group F received 2.5 ml 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine and 25 g of Fentanyl intrathecally. Patients in group F had faster onset of motor and sensory block than group D (P = 0.000). Patients in group D had significantly longer duration of motor and sensory blockade as compared to those in group F (P = 0.000). Postoperative analgesia was significantly longer in group D than group F (P =0.000). Incidence of side effects among the two groups was not statistically significant. Fentanyl has faster onset compared with Dexmedetomidine but prolonged duration of sensory and motor blockade with postoperative analgesia was seen with Dexmedetomidine without significant side effects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".