4.6 Article

Dexamethasone as an adjuvant for peripheral nerve blockade: a randomised, triple-blinded crossover study in volunteers

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
Volume 122, Issue 4, Pages 525-531

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.01.004

Keywords

dexamethasone; local anaesthetics; regional anaesthesia; ropivacaine; ulnar nerve block; ultrasound-guided

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The efficacy of dexamethasone in extending the duration of local anaesthetic block is uncertain. In a randomised controlled triple blind crossover study in volunteers, we tested the hypothesis that neither i.v. nor peri-neurally administered dexamethasone prolongs the sensory block achieved with ropivacaine. Methods: Ultrasound-guided ulnar nerve blocks (ropivacaine 0.75% wt/vol, 3 ml, with saline 1 ml with or without dexamethasone 4 mg) were performed on three occasions in 24 male volunteers along with an i. v. injection of saline 1 ml with or without dexamethasone 4 mg. The combinations of saline and dexamethasone were as follows: control group, perineural and i. v. saline; perineural group, perineural dexamethasone and i. v. saline; i. v. group, perineural saline and i. v. dexamethasone. Sensory block was measured using a VAS in response to pinprick testing. The duration of sensory block was the primary outcome and time to onset of sensory block the secondary outcome. Results: All 24 subjects completed the trial. The median [inter-quartile range (IQR)] duration of sensory block was 6.87 (5.85-7.62) h in the control group, 7.37 (5.78-7.93) h in the perineural group and 7.37 (6.10-7.97) h in the i. v. group (P = 0.61). There was also no significant difference in block onset time between the three groups. Conclusion: Dexamethasone 4 mg has no clinically relevant effect on the duration of sensory block provided by ropivacaine applied to the ulnar nerve.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available