Background: The usage of opioid sparing analgesia in different surgeries leads to varied results. The aim of this study is to compare between the effects of continuous intraoperative infusion of dexmedetomidine versus lidocaine as opioid sparing analgesia in children undergoing intracranial surgeries. Methods: It is a double-blind randomized clinical study in which, 64 children were randomly allocated into 2 equal groups; 32 children for each group. The first one was dexmedetomidine group which received continuous intraoperative dexmedetomidine iv infusion [1ug/kg dexamedetomidine over 15 minutes as a loading dose and 0.5ug/kg/h for maintenance]. The second one was lidocaine group which received continuous intraoperative lidocaine iv infusion [1.5mg/kg lidocaine over 15 minutes as a loading dose and 1.5mg/kg/h for maintenance]. The continuous intraoperative iv infusion of each tested drug was stopped 10 minutes before the end the surgical procedure. Results:Intraoperative total fentanyl consumption was significantly reduced in dexmedetomidine compared to lidocaine group ([19.33±11.15 vs 43.10±21.15] ug, 95% CI, -45.8 to -1.7). Children in dexmedetomidine group were significantly more sedated compared to lidocaine group. The time to reach Wong–Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFPS) scores 4 or more was around 4 hours in dexmedetomidine and around 1hour in lidocaine group. The time to first call of naluphine with dexmedetomidine was significantly prolonged compared to lidocaine ([235.03±5.02 vs 55.87±6.28] min, 95% CI, 176.3-182) with significantly reduced total postoperative naluphine consumption in dexmedetomidine compared to lidocaine ([4.22±1.46 vs 7.96±2.8] mg, 95% CI,-4.9 to -2.6) . The duration of PACU stay was significantly prolonged in lidocaine compared to dexmedetomidine ([99.75±14.36 vs 114.28±10.56] min, 95% CI,-20.8 to -8.2). Conclusion: Continuous Intraoperative intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine was superior to lidocaine in opioid sparing analgesia during intracranial surgeries in children.