Hiwarkar Shashank, Kshirsagar Rajesh, Singh Vikram, Patankar Amod, Chandan Sanjay, Rathod Mukund, Mohite Ajay
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, BVDU Dental College and Hospital, Pune, India.
J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2018 Mar;17(1):44-51. doi: 10.1007/s12663-016-0992-5. Epub 2016 Dec 18.
The purpose of this prospective randomized single blinded split mouth study was to conduct a comparative evaluation of the efficacy of intranasal atomised spray formulation of Dexmedetomidine with Midazolam in patients undergoing surgical removal of bilaterally impacted mandibular third molars.
This prospective study was conducted in twenty volunteers. Each volunteer underwent the surgical removal of an impacted mandibular third molar at two separate appointments at an interval of two weeks. The first third molar surgery was conducted using either intranasal Midazolam (Group M) or intranasal Dexmedetomidine (Group D). At the second appointment the surgical procedure was performed using the sedative agent not used at the first appointment. The primary testing outcome variables were Plasma oxygen saturation (SpO2), pulse and blood pressure and Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scale. These were recorded at predetermined intervals starting 10 min before the administration of local anaesthesia and continued up to 10 min after completion of the procedure. In addition surgeon's opinion regarding the patient cooperation, event amnesia, post operative nausea & vomiting were obtained.
The sample composed of twenty patients (M = 9 and F = 11). There was statistically no significant difference between Group M and Group D with respect to mean SpO2. Minor differences were however noted at 20 and 30 min after sedation. There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to mean pulse rate, blood pressure, OAA/S, event amnesia, post operative nausea and vomiting and patient cooperation.
We conclude that Midazolam and Dexmedetomidine are equivalent and can be used in minor oral surgery with minimal complications. These drugs can be used intranasally using nasal atomization device in routine outpatient basis in otherwise normal healthy but anxious patients. All procedures must however be performed in the presence of an anaesthesiologist and with ready availability of emergency drugs and equipment.
本前瞻性随机单盲半口研究旨在对右美托咪定鼻内雾化喷雾剂与咪达唑仑在双侧下颌阻生第三磨牙手术患者中的疗效进行比较评估。
本前瞻性研究纳入了20名志愿者。每位志愿者在相隔两周的两次单独就诊时接受一颗下颌阻生第三磨牙的拔除手术。第一次第三磨牙手术使用鼻内咪达唑仑(M组)或鼻内右美托咪定(D组)。在第二次就诊时,手术使用第一次就诊时未使用的镇静剂。主要测试结果变量包括血浆氧饱和度(SpO2)、脉搏和血压以及改良的观察者警觉/镇静评估(OAA/S)量表。这些指标在预定时间间隔记录,从局部麻醉给药前10分钟开始,持续至手术结束后10分钟。此外,还获取了外科医生对患者合作情况、事件遗忘、术后恶心和呕吐的意见。
样本由20名患者组成(男性9名,女性11名)。M组和D组在平均SpO2方面无统计学显著差异。然而,在镇静后20分钟和30分钟时观察到微小差异。两组在平均脉搏率、血压、OAA/S、事件遗忘、术后恶心呕吐和患者合作方面无显著差异。
我们得出结论,咪达唑仑和右美托咪定等效,可用于小型口腔手术,并发症最少。这些药物可通过鼻雾化装置在常规门诊用于原本健康但焦虑的患者。然而,所有操作必须在麻醉医生在场且应急药物和设备随时可用的情况下进行。