To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Bupivacaine-Lidocaine-Dexamethasone vs Bupivacaine for Motor Recovery in Distal Radius Surgery

Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
August 2025

Bupivacaine-Lidocaine-Dexamethasone vs Bupivacaine for Motor Recovery in Distal Radius Surgery

Vol: 307| Issue: 8| Number:28| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:1

Comparison between bupivacaine-lidocaine, dexamethasone mixture and bupivacaine alone for motor recovery after axillary brachial plexus block in distal radius surgery: A prospective randomized trial.

PLoS One . 2025 Apr 7;20(4):e0321087.

Contributing Authors:
R Jongkongkawutthi P Rungwattanakit P Halilamien S Poolsuppasit B Sirivanasandha

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

Seventy patients with acute closed distal radius fractures scheduled for open reduction and internal fixation under axillary brachial plexus block were randomized to receive either a mixture of 1.2% lidocaine, 0.2% bupivacaine, and 5 mg dexamethasone (n=35) or 0.5% bupivacaine with saline (n=35). The primary outcome was motor block duration. Secondary outcomes included sensory block duration, time...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue