RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine has been used by multiple routes in laparoscopic surgeries to attenuate the hemodynamic response. The present study was done to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine nebulization with intravenous dexmedetomidine and fentanyl in laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia. METHODS: A prospective, double blind study was conducted, and 90 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I and II patients of either gender between 18-65 years undergoing laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia were randomized into three groups. (1) Group N (n = 30) received dexmedetomidine nebulization 1 mcg/kg in 3 mL of 0.9% saline 15 minutes before induction and 10 mL of intravenous 0.9% saline over 10 minutes at the time of induction of anesthesia. (2) Group I (n = 30) received 0.9% saline nebulization 3 mL and intravenous dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg in 10 mL of 0.9% saline. (3) Group F (n = 30) received 0.9% saline nebulization 3 mL and intravenous fentanyl 2 mcg/kg in 10mL of 0.9% saline. Heart rate, blood pressure, propofol requirement, and opioid consumption were monitored throughout surgery and for 1 hour in post-operative period. Statistical analysis was done by using analysis of variance test, chi-square test. P value ï¼ 0.05 was considered signifi cant. RESULTS: Suppression of hemodynamic response following intubation and pneumoperitoneum by dexmedetomidine nebulization was compared to intravenous dexmedetomidine and fentanyl. Opioid requirement was significantly lower in dexmedetomidine group than fentanyl group (P ï¼ 0.05). Propofol requirement was lower with intravenous and nebulized dexmedetomidine than intravenous fentanyl. CONCLUSIONS: In laparoscopic surgeries, nebulized dexmedetomidine suppresses hemodynamic response when compared to intravenous dexmedetomidine along with dose sparing effect of opioid and propofol.