Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jul-Sep;31(3):354-9.
doi: 10.4103/0970-9185.161672.

Comparison of dexamethasone and clonidine as an adjuvant to 1.5% lignocaine with adrenaline in infraclavicular brachial plexus block for upper limb surgeries

Affiliations

Comparison of dexamethasone and clonidine as an adjuvant to 1.5% lignocaine with adrenaline in infraclavicular brachial plexus block for upper limb surgeries

Dipal Mahendra Shah et al. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Jul-Sep.

Abstract

Background and aims: The role of clonidine as an adjuvant to regional blocks to hasten the onset of the local anesthetics or prolong their duration of action is proven. The efficacy of dexamethasone compared to clonidine as an adjuvant is not known. We aimed to compare the efficacy of dexamethasone versus clonidine as an adjuvant to 1.5% lignocaine with adrenaline in infraclavicular brachial plexus block for upper limb surgeries.

Material and methods: Fifty three American Society of Anaesthesiologists-I and II patients aged 18-60 years scheduled for upper limb surgery were randomized to three groups to receive 1.5% lignocaine with 1:200,000 adrenaline and the study drugs. Group S (n = 13) received normal saline, group D (n = 20) received dexamethasone and group C (n = 20) received clonidine. The time to onset and peak effect, duration of the block (sensory and motor) and postoperative analgesia requirement were recorded. Chi-square and ANOVA test were used for categorical and continuous variables respectively and Bonferroni or post-hoc test for multiple comparisons. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results: The three groups were comparable in terms of time to onset and peak action of motor and sensory block, postoperative analgesic requirements and pain scores. 90% of the blocks were successful in group C compared to only 60% in group D (P = 0.028). The duration of sensory and motor block in group S, D and C were 217.73 ± 61.41 min, 335.83 ± 97.18 min and 304.72 ± 139.79 min and 205.91 ± 70.1 min, 289.58 ± 78.37 min and 232.5 ± 74.2 min respectively. There was significant prolongation of sensory and motor block in group D as compared to group S (P < 0.5). Time to first analgesic requirement was significantly more in groups C and D as compared with group S (P < 0.5). Clinically significant complications were absent.

Conclusions: We conclude that clonidine is more efficacious than dexamethasone as an adjuvant to 1.5% lignocaine in brachial plexus blocks.

Keywords: Clonidine; dexamethasone; regional anesthesia.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Intraoperative blood pressure
Figure 2
Figure 2
Duration of block
Figure 3
Figure 3
Time to first analgesia
Figure 4
Figure 4
Postoperative blood pressure

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Murphy DB, McCartney CJ, Chan VW. Novel analgesic adjuncts for brachial plexus block: A systematic review. Anesth Analg. 2000;90:1122–8. - PubMed
    1. Movafegh A, Razazian M, Hajimaohamadi F, Meysamie A. Dexamethasone added to lidocaine prolongs axillary brachial plexus blockade. Anesth Analg. 2006;102:263–7. - PubMed
    1. Wilson JL, Brown DL, Wong GY, Ehman RL, Cahill DR. Infraclavicular brachial plexus block: Parasagittal anatomy important to the coracoid technique. Anesth Analg. 1998;87:870–3. - PubMed
    1. Raj PP, Montgomery SJ, Nettles D, Jenkins MT. Infraclavicular brachial plexus block — A new approach. Anesth Analg. 1973;52:897–904. - PubMed
    1. Whiffler K. Coracoid block — A safe and easy technique. Br J Anaesth. 1981;53:845–8. - PubMed