Dexmedetomidine Combined With Propofol in Hip Fracture Surgery and Its Effect on Postoperative Pain and Hemodynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the use of dexmedetomidine (DEX) combined with propofol in hip fracture surgery and its effect on postoperative pain and hemodynamics. METHODS: One hundred forty patients undergoing hip fracture surgery were divided into a treatment group (receiving DEX combined with propofol anesthesia) and a control group (receiving propofol anesthesia). The Ramsay Sedation Scale was used to evaluate the sedative effect 24 hours postoperatively, while the Visual Analog Scale was used to assess the analgesic effect 24 hours after surgery. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale was used to evaluate cognitive function before and 24 hours after surgery. Heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded at different stages of anesthesia, and the incidence of postoperative adverse reactions was also recorded. RESULTS: Compared with the control group, at 24 hours postoperatively, patients in the treatment group had higher Ramsay sedation scores and lower Visual Analog Scale scores ( P < 0.05). Before surgery, the MoCA scores of both groups showed no significant difference ( P > 0.05), but the treatment group had higher MoCA scores 24 hours after surgery compared with the control group ( P < 0.05). No difference was observed in HR and MAP levels before anesthesia between the two groups ( P > 0.05), while the treatment group performed lower MAP and HR levels than the control group at skin incision and at the end of surgery ( P < 0.05). In addition, the incidence of postoperative adverse reactions was lower in the treatment group than in the control group ( P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: DEX combined with propofol for composite anesthesia in hip fracture surgery effectively meets the requirements for surgical anesthesia, maintains hemodynamic stability, and exhibits good postoperative analgesic and sedative 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".