The effect of total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol on postoperative pain after third molar surgery: A double-blind randomized controlled trial

The analgesic effect of total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol versus inhalational anaesthesia for acute postoperative pain after hepatectomy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain control can be challenging in patients undergoing hepatectomy. A previous retrospective study on hepatobiliary/ pancreatic surgeries showed better postoperative pain control in patients who received propofol TIVA. The aim of this study was to determine the analgesic effect of propofol TIVA for hepatectomy. This clinical study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03597997).

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled trial was performed to compare the analgesic effect of propofol TIVA versus inhalational anaesthesia. Patients aged between 18 and 80 years old with an American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status of I-III scheduled for elective hepatectomy were recruited. Ninety patients were randomly allocated to receive either propofol TIVA (TIVA group) or inhalational anaesthesia with sevoflurane (SEVO group). Perioperative anaesthetic/analgesic management was the same for both groups. Numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores, postoperative morphine consumption, quality of recovery, patient satisfaction and adverse effects were evaluated during the acute postoperative period and at 3 and 6 months after surgery.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found for acute postoperative pain scores (both at rest and during coughing) and postoperative morphine consumption between TIVA and SEVO groups. Patients given TIVA had lower pain scores with coughing at 3 months after surgery (p = 0.014, and FDR < 0.1). TIVA group was associated with better quality of recovery on postoperative day (POD) 3 (p = 0.038, and FDR < 0.1), less nausea (p = 0.011, and FDR < 0.1 on POD 2; p = 0.013, and FDR < 0.1 on POD 3) and constipation (p = 0.013, and FDR < 0.1 on POD 3).

CONCLUSION

Propofol TIVA did not improve acute postoperative pain control compared to inhalational anaesthesia in patients who underwent hepatectomy. Our results do not support the use of propofol TIVA for reducing acute postoperative pain after hepatectomy.

Effectiveness of a Brief Hypnotic Induction in Third Molar Extraction: A Randomized Controlled Trial (HypMol)

Third molar extraction is a painful treatment for patients, and thus, it can be used to investigate the effects of analgesics on pain. Hypnosis can help to reduce pain and to decrease the intake of postoperative systemic analgesics. In this study, the effectiveness of a brief hypnotic induction for patients undergoing third molar extractions was investigated. Data were collected from 33 patients with third molar extractions on the right and left sides. Patients received 2 different types of pain interventions in this monocentric randomized crossover trial. Third molar extraction was conducted on 1 side with reduced preoperative local anesthetics and an additional brief hypnotic induction (Dave Elman technique). The other side was conducted with regular preoperative local anesthetics without a brief hypnotic induction (standard care). Intake of postoperative systemic analgesics was allowed in both treatments. Patients' expectations about hypnosis were assessed at baseline. The primary outcome was the area under the curve with respect to ground of pain intensity after the treatment. Secondary outcomes were the amount of postoperative analgesics consumed and the preferred treatment. There was no evidence that the area under the curve with respect to ground of pain differed between the 2 interventions (controlling for gender), but the patients' expectations affected the effectiveness of the brief hypnotic induction. This means that patients with high expectations about hypnosis benefit more from treatment with reduced preoperative local anesthetics and additional brief hypnotic induction. PERSPECTIVE: Hypnosis is used as a treatment to reduce pain in general and dental settings. In this study, additional a brief hypnotic induction with reduced preoperative local anesthetic use did not generally reduce posttreatment pain after third molar extraction more than regular local anesthetics. The expectation of the patients about the effectiveness of hypnosis affected the effectiveness of the brief hypnotic induction so that patients with high expectations had a larger benefit from a brief hypnotic induction than patients with low expectations.

Propofol total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhalational anaesthesia for acute postoperative pain in patients with morphine patient-controlled analgesia: a large-scale retrospective study with covariate adjustment

Background

To compare the postoperative analgesic effect of propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) versus inhalational anaesthesia (GAS) in patients using morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed in a single tertiary university hospital. Adult patients who used PCA morphine after general anaesthesia across 15 types of surgeries were included. Patients who received propofol TIVA were compared to those who had inhalational anaesthesia. Primary outcomes assessed were postoperative numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores and postoperative opioid consumption.

Results

Data from 4202 patients were analysed. The overall adjusted NRS pain scores were significantly lower in patients who received propofol TIVA at rest (GEE: β estimate of the mean on a 0 to 10 scale = -0.56, 95% CI = (-0.74 to -0.38), p < 0.001; GAS as reference group) and with movement (β estimate = -0.89, 95% CI = (-1.1 to -0.69), p < 0.001) from postoperative days (POD) 1–3. Propofol TIVA was associated with lower overall adjusted postoperative morphine consumption (β estimate = -3.45, 95% CI = (-4.46 to -2.44), p < 0.001). Patients with propofol TIVA had lower adjusted NRS pain scores with movement for hepatobiliary/pancreatic (p < 0.001), upper gastrointestinal (p < 0.001) and urological surgeries (p = 0.005); and less adjusted postoperative morphine consumption for hepatobiliary/pancreatic (p < 0.001), upper gastrointestinal (p = 0.006) and urological surgeries (p = 0.002). There were no differences for other types of surgeries.

Conclusion

Propofol TIVA was associated with statistically significant, but small reduction in pain scores and opioid consumption in patients using PCA morphine. Subgroup analysis suggests clinically meaningful analgesia possibly for hepatobiliary/pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal surgeries.

Trial registration

This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03875872).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-022-01683-9.

Type of anesthesia and quality of recovery in male patients undergoing lumbar surgery: a randomized trial comparing propofol-remifentanil total i.v. anesthesia with sevoflurane anesthesia

Background

Previous studies have shown that women achieve a better quality of postoperative recovery from total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) than from inhalation anesthesia, but the effect of anesthesia type on recovery in male patients is unclear. This study therefore compared patient recovery between males undergoing lumbar surgery who received TIVA and those who received sevoflurane anesthesia.

Methods

Eighty male patients undergoing elective one- or two-level primary transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) were randomly divided into two groups: the TIVA group (maintenance was achieved with propofol and remifentanil) or sevoflurane group (SEVO group: maintenance was achieved with sevoflurane and remifentanil). The quality of recovery-40 questionnaire (QoR-40) was administered before surgery and on postoperative days 1 and 2 (POD1 and POD2). Pain scores, postoperative nausea and vomiting, postoperative hospital stay, anesthesia consumption, and adverse effects were recorded.

Results

The QoR-40 scores were similar on the three points (Preoperative, POD1 and POD2). Pain scores were significantly lower in the SEVO group than in the TIVA group on POD1 (30.6 vs 31.4; P = 0.01) and POD2 (32 vs 33; P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the postoperative hospital stay or complications in the postanesthesia care unit between the TIVA group and the SEVO group.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that the quality of recovery is not significantly different between male TLIF surgery patients who receive TIVA and those who receive sevoflurane anesthesia. Patients in the TIVA group had better postoperative analgesic effect on POD2.

Trial registration

This was registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn (registration number ChiCTR-IOR-16007987, registration date: 24/02/2016).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-021-01519-y.

Propofol based total intravenous anesthesia versus sevoflurane based inhalation anesthesia: The postoperative characteristics in oral and maxillofacial surgery

OBJECTIVE

Total intravenous anesthesia and inhalation/volatile anesthesia are the main general anesthesia procedures used in all surgical applications. The aim of this study was to compare sevoflurane anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia with propofol in terms of postoperative complications, especially after oral and maxillofacial surgeries.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Each patient was taken to the recovery room following extubation, and the pulse rate, non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) and oxygen saturation were monitored. Presence of hypoxia, tachycardia, bradycardia, hypertension and hypotension were determined as vital sign complications.

RESULTS

The risk of complications related to vital functions were low for both anesthesia methods, and no statistically significant difference between the groups. The incidence of nausea and vomiting was found to be significantly higher in the patients undergoing both major (p = 0.011) and minor (p = 0.021) surgeries in the IA-S group. The recovery time was found to be significantly longer in the TIVA-P group compared to the IA-S group in the patients undergoing both major (p = 0.026) and minor surgery (p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

TIVA and IA methods, which are considered safe in terms of vital signs, should be preferred according to patient characteristics. Despite the fact that inhaled anesthetics require PONV premedication for long term interventions, we believe that they could be preferred due to shorter recovery time compared to intravenous anesthetics.

Infraclavicular nerve block reduces postoperative pain after distal radial fracture fixation: a randomized controlled trial

Background

It is unclear whether regional anesthesia with infraclavicular nerve block or general anesthesia provides better postoperative analgesia after distal radial fracture fixation, especially when combined with regular postoperative analgesic medications. The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative analgesic effects of regional versus general anesthesia.

Methods

In this prospective, observer blinded, randomized controlled trial, 52 patients undergoing distal radial fracture fixation received either general anesthesia (n = 26) or regional anesthesia (infraclavicular nerve block, n = 26). Numerical rating scale pain scores, analgesic consumption, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, upper limb functional scores (Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation, QuickDASH), health related quality of life (SF12v2), and psychological status were evaluated after surgery.

Result

Regional anesthesia was associated with significantly lower pain scores both at rest and with movement on arrival to the post-anesthetic care unit; and at 1, 2, 24 and 48 h after surgery (p ≤ 0.001 at rest and with movement). Morphine consumption in the post-anesthetic care unit was significantly lower in the regional anesthesia group (p<0.001). There were no differences in oral analgesic consumption. Regional anesthesia was associated with lower incidences of nausea (p = 0.004), and vomiting (p = 0.050). Patient satisfaction was higher in the regional anesthesia group (p = 0.003). There were no long-term differences in pain scores and other patient outcomes.

Conclusion

Regional anesthesia with ultrasound guided infraclavicular nerve block was associated with better acute pain relief after distal radial fracture fixation, and may be preferred over general anesthesia.

Trial registration

Before subject enrollment, the study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03048214) on 9th February 2017.

Volatiles or TIVA: Which is the standard of care for pediatric airway procedures? A pro-con discussion

Anesthesia for pediatric airway procedures constitutes a true art form that requires training and experience. Communication between anesthetist and surgeon to establish procedure goals is essential in determining the most appropriate anesthetic management. But does the mode of anesthesia have an impact? Traditionally, inhalational anesthesia was the most common anesthesia technique used during airway surgery. Introduction of agents used for total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) such as propofol, short-acting opioids, midazolam, and dexmedetomidine has driven change in practice. Ongoing debates abound as to the advantages and disadvantages of volatile-based anesthesia versus TIVA. This pro-con discussion examines both volatiles and TIVA, from the perspective of effectiveness, safety, cost, and environmental impact, in an endeavor to justify which technique is the best specifically for pediatric airway procedures.