Comparison of dexmedetomidine vs midazolam in sedations in the area of ophthalmology for surgery performed with peribulbar technique.

Abstract

Various medications can provide efficacy and safety when performing peribulbar block, but side effects limit their usefulness. Dexmedetomidine may serve as an adjunctive anesthetic to peribulbar block. Objective: determine the level of quality of the use of dexmedetomidine vs midazolam in sedation in the area of ​​ophthalmology for surgery performed with the peribulbar technique. Methodology: an experimental study, analytical, cross-sectional, intentional clinical trial type was carried out on 48 ASA I and II patients who met the inclusion criteria scheduled for cataract surgery under peribulbar block and sedation, two groups of 24 patients were formed. Midazolam group (30 mcg/kg body weight), and dexmedetomidine group (0.5 mcg/kg body weight), intravenous bolus route after peribulbar block, hemodynamic variables, Ramsay scale, whether the use of propofol was warranted, and adverse effects were recorded. Results: the use of dexmedetomidine and midazolam has a cardiorespiratory safety profile; Furthermore, the Ramsay II scale prevailed throughout the procedure with respect to the midazolam group. The performance of peribulbar block without integrating propofol was demonstrated and better comfort and safety were obtained with the dexmedetomidine group, as well as overall satisfaction with the procedure. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine is an alternative to midazolam in performing peribulbar block, providing greater comfort during the procedure. However, the usefulness of both drugs must be considered on a patient-by-patient basis