The ideal anesthetic drug choice for local infiltration anesthesia under monitored anesthesia care must provide analgesia and patients’ comfort along with a bloodless surgical field for patients. We hypothesized that dexemedetomidine can provide better visibility of the surgical field at a higher dose of 1 µg/kg than 0.5 µg/kg, along with providing sedation and analgesia. Methods: After institutional ethics committee clearance and written informed consent, this prospective, randomized, triple blind study was conducted on ninety patients, between 18- 65 years who were scheduled for tympanoplasty. The patients were randomly assigned to either the dexmedetomidine (DEX) 0.5 group or the DEX 1.0 group, and received 10 ml solution containing 2% lignocaine with 0.5 µg/kg dexmedetomidine, or the 1 µg/kg dexmedetomidine. The operative surgeon performed local infiltration using standardized 5-point infiltration technique around the auricle. The primary objective was to compare the intraoperative bleeding at the surgical site. The comparison of normally distributed variables was conducted using the Student’s t-test, whereas non-normally distributed variables was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. The analysis of qualitative data was conducted using the chisquare/Fisher’s exact test. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The overall bleeding score was significantly higher in the DEX 0.5 group (3.21 ± 0.727) than the DEX 1.0 group (1.43 ± 0.661) (P value < 0.001). The time to first analgesic requirement and surgeon satisfaction score were also significantly higher in the DEX 1.0 group. Conclusions: Combining dexmedetomidine at a dose of 1 µg/kg with 2% lignocaine for infiltration provided improved analgesia and improved the surgical field during tympanoplasty performed under monitored anesthesia care.

The ideal anesthetic drug choice for local infiltration anesthesia under monitored anesthesia care must provide analgesia and patients’ comfort along with a bloodless surgical field for patients. We hypothesized that dexemedetomidine can provide better visibility of the surgical field at a higher dose of 1 µg/kg than 0.5 µg/kg, along with providing sedation and analgesia. Methods: After institutional ethics committee clearance and written informed consent, this prospective, randomized, triple blind study was conducted on ninety patients, between 18- 65 years who were scheduled for tympanoplasty. The patients were randomly assigned to either the dexmedetomidine (DEX) 0.5 group or the DEX 1.0 group, and received 10 ml solution containing 2% lignocaine with 0.5 µg/kg dexmedetomidine, or the 1 µg/kg dexmedetomidine. The operative surgeon performed local infiltration using standardized 5-point infiltration technique around the auricle. The primary objective was to compare the intraoperative bleeding at the surgical site. The comparison of normally distributed variables was conducted using the Student’s t-test, whereas non-normally distributed variables was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. The analysis of qualitative data was conducted using the chisquare/Fisher’s exact test. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The overall bleeding score was significantly higher in the DEX 0.5 group (3.21 ± 0.727) than the DEX 1.0 group (1.43 ± 0.661) (P value < 0.001). The time to first analgesic requirement and surgeon satisfaction score were also significantly higher in the DEX 1.0 group. Conclusions: Combining dexmedetomidine at a dose of 1 µg/kg with 2% lignocaine for infiltration provided improved analgesia and improved the surgical field during tympanoplasty performed under monitored anesthesia care.

The ideal anesthetic drug choice for local infiltration anesthesia under monitored anesthesia care must provide analgesia and patients’ comfort along with a bloodless surgical field for patients. We hypothesized that dexemedetomidine can provide better visibility of the surgical field at a higher dose of 1 µg/kg than 0.5 µg/kg, along with providing sedation and analgesia. Methods: After institutional ethics committee clearance and written informed consent, this prospective, randomized, triple blind study was conducted on ninety patients, between 18- 65 years who were scheduled for tympanoplasty. The patients were randomly assigned to either the dexmedetomidine (DEX) 0.5 group or the DEX 1.0 group, and received 10 ml solution containing 2% lignocaine with 0.5 µg/kg dexmedetomidine, or the 1 µg/kg dexmedetomidine. The operative surgeon performed local infiltration using standardized 5-point infiltration technique around the auricle. The primary objective was to compare the intraoperative bleeding at the surgical site. The comparison of normally distributed variables was conducted using the Student’s t-test, whereas non-normally distributed variables was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. The analysis of qualitative data was conducted using the chisquare/Fisher’s exact test. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The overall bleeding score was significantly higher in the DEX 0.5 group (3.21 ± 0.727) than the DEX 1.0 group (1.43 ± 0.661) (P value < 0.001). The time to first analgesic requirement and surgeon satisfaction score were also significantly higher in the DEX 1.0 group. Conclusions: Combining dexmedetomidine at a dose of 1 µg/kg with 2% lignocaine for infiltration provided improved analgesia and improved the surgical field during tympanoplasty performed under monitored anesthesia care.

The ideal anesthetic drug choice for local infiltration anesthesia under monitored anesthesia care must provide analgesia and patients’ comfort along with a bloodless surgical field for patients. We hypothesized that dexemedetomidine can provide better visibility of the surgical field at a higher dose of 1 µg/kg than 0.5 µg/kg, along with providing sedation and analgesia. Methods: After institutional ethics committee clearance and written informed consent, this prospective, randomized, triple blind study was conducted on ninety patients, between 18- 65 years who were scheduled for tympanoplasty. The patients were randomly assigned to either the dexmedetomidine (DEX) 0.5 group or the DEX 1.0 group, and received 10 ml solution containing 2% lignocaine with 0.5 µg/kg dexmedetomidine, or the 1 µg/kg dexmedetomidine. The operative surgeon performed local infiltration using standardized 5-point infiltration technique around the auricle. The primary objective was to compare the intraoperative bleeding at the surgical site. The comparison of normally distributed variables was conducted using the Student’s t-test, whereas non-normally distributed variables was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. The analysis of qualitative data was conducted using the chisquare/Fisher’s exact test. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The overall bleeding score was significantly higher in the DEX 0.5 group (3.21 ± 0.727) than the DEX 1.0 group (1.43 ± 0.661) (P value < 0.001). The time to first analgesic requirement and surgeon satisfaction score were also significantly higher in the DEX 1.0 group. Conclusions: Combining dexmedetomidine at a dose of 1 µg/kg with 2% lignocaine for infiltration provided improved analgesia and improved the surgical field during tympanoplasty performed under monitored anesthesia care.

The ideal anesthetic drug choice for local infiltration anesthesia under monitored anesthesia care must provide analgesia and patients’ comfort along with a bloodless surgical field for patients. We hypothesized that dexemedetomidine can provide better visibility of the surgical field at a higher dose of 1 µg/kg than 0.5 µg/kg, along with providing sedation and analgesia. Methods: After institutional ethics committee clearance and written informed consent, this prospective, randomized, triple blind study was conducted on ninety patients, between 18- 65 years who were scheduled for tympanoplasty. The patients were randomly assigned to either the dexmedetomidine (DEX) 0.5 group or the DEX 1.0 group, and received 10 ml solution containing 2% lignocaine with 0.5 µg/kg dexmedetomidine, or the 1 µg/kg dexmedetomidine. The operative surgeon performed local infiltration using standardized 5-point infiltration technique around the auricle. The primary objective was to compare the intraoperative bleeding at the surgical site. The comparison of normally distributed variables was conducted using the Student’s t-test, whereas non-normally distributed variables was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. The analysis of qualitative data was conducted using the chisquare/Fisher’s exact test. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The overall bleeding score was significantly higher in the DEX 0.5 group (3.21 ± 0.727) than the DEX 1.0 group (1.43 ± 0.661) (P value < 0.001). The time to first analgesic requirement and surgeon satisfaction score were also significantly higher in the DEX 1.0 group. Conclusions: Combining dexmedetomidine at a dose of 1 µg/kg with 2% lignocaine for infiltration provided improved analgesia and improved the surgical field during tympanoplasty performed under monitored anesthesia care.

Background/Aims: Patients of ulcerative colitis (UC) on follow-up are routinely evaluated by sigmoidoscopy. There is no prospective literature to support this practice. We assessed agreement between sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy prospectively in patients with disease extent beyond the sigmoid colon. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study at a tertiary care institute for agreement between sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. We assessed endoscopic activity using the Mayo Endoscopic Score (MES) and Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) and histological activity using the Nancy Index (NI), Robarts Histopathology Index (RHI), and Simplified Geboes Score (SGS). Results: Sigmoidoscopy showed a strong agreement with colonoscopy for MES and UCEIS with a kappa (κ) of 0.96 and 0.94 respectively. The misclassification rate for MES and UCEIS was 3% and 5% respectively. Sigmoidoscopy showed perfect agreement (κ = 1.00) with colonoscopy for assessment of the presence of endoscopic activity in the colon using MES ≥ 1 as activity criteria and strong agreement (κ = 0.93) using MES > 1 as activity criteria. Sigmoidoscopy showed strong agreement with colonoscopy for assessment of the presence of endoscopic activity using UCEIS (κ = 0.92). Strong agreement was observed between sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy using NI (κ = 0.86), RHI (κ = 1.00), and SGS (κ = 0.92) for the detection of histological activity. The misclassification rate for the detection of histological activity was 2%, 0%, and 1% for NI, RHI, and SGS respectively. Conclusions Sigmoidoscopy showed strong agreement with colonoscopy for endoscopic and histologic disease activity. Sigmoidoscopy is adequate for assessment of disease activity in patients with UC during follow-up evaluation.