A double-blind clinical trial was conducted at Loghman Hakim Hospital over the course of a year. The research adhered to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. The ethics committee approved the procedures for this double-blind, prospective, randomized clinical trial. After explaining the study protocol to all participating patients, we obtained their written informed consent.
The study included patients aged between 18 and 65 years. All participants had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status of I or II and were candidates for elective trans-sphenoidal pituitary surgery under general anesthesia.
Exclusion criteria included patients with morbid obesity [Body Mass Index (BMI) > 35 kg/m²], a history of alcohol or drug abuse, liver or kidney diseases, a preoperative heart rate (HR) below 50 beats per minute, an ejection fraction below 30%, coagulopathy, neuromuscular diseases, a known allergy to study medications, and those taking certain medications.
Before surgery, patients underwent assessments that included a review of their medical history, a physical examination, neurological evaluations, and laboratory tests. These tests checked for hemoglobin levels, liver and kidney function, thyroid function, electrocardiogram (ECG) results, and hormonal assays.
Patients were assigned to three groups: Group D (dexmedetomidine), group M (magnesium sulfate), and group C (control). This allocation was done using blocks, and it was concealed to ensure that the patients were unaware of their group assignments. Medications for groups D and M were administered in a blinded manner according to the study protocol.
Before surgery, all patients received three minutes of 100% oxygen, 0.2 mg/kg midazolam, 3 - 5 micrograms/kg fentanyl, and 1 - 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine as premedication.
In group D, each patient received a bolus of one microgram per kilogram within 10 minutes, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.5 micrograms per kilogram per hour until the end of the surgery. In group M, patients received a bolus of 50 micrograms per kilogram within the same timeframe, followed by an infusion of 15 micrograms per kilogram per hour until the conclusion of the operation. Additionally, the individual responsible for analyzing the results was blinded to the group allocations.
Various parameters were recorded, including demographic information, hemodynamic measures (such as HR and mean arterial pressure), blood loss, the Boezaart Scale, the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS), BMI, dosages of fentanyl and propofol, the type of surgery performed, and extubation time. The surgery was conducted by a single surgeon, and anesthesia was induced by a single anesthesiologist for all patients. After the surgery, patients were transferred to the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) for monitoring.
The primary outcome was hemodynamic stability during and after the surgery and surgeons’ satisfaction with the surgery. The secondary outcome was pain, measured with the NRS (
Table 1).
| Score | Description |
|---|
| 0 | No bleeding, virtually bloodless field |
| 1 | Slight bleeding, blood suctioning is not required |
| 2 | Mild bleeding, occasional suctioning without interference of surgical field |
| 3 | Moderate bleeding, suctioning is usually used; bleeding threatens the surgical field but improves after suctioning |
| 4 | Heavy bleeding, suctioning is frequently used; bleeding threatens the surgical field directly after suction is removed |
| 5 | Severe bleeding, bleeding appears faster than suctioning and is uncontrollable |
The hemodynamic data of the patients were recorded from the time before anesthesia induction until the end of the surgery. The NRS was measured in the recovery room one hour after surgery.
To determine the sample size, I utilized G*Power software, based on the study conducted by Soliman and Fouad (
13). The parameters for the analysis included an effect size of 0.54, a significance level (α) of 0.05, and a power (β) of 0.90. Ultimately, we selected a sample size of ninety patients.
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software version 22. Descriptive analysis and independent t-tests were employed to compare variables between the study groups. A P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.