Quality of recovery and safety of deep intravenous sedation compared to general anesthesia in facial plastic surgery: A prospective cohort study

Anesthesia for office-based facial plastic surgery procedures

Objective

The objective of this study is to provide a state-of-the-art review on the use of anesthetics for in-office facial plastic procedures.

Methods

A search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Review using the keywords "anesthesia," "office-based procedures," "local anesthesia," "facial plastics," "oral sedation," "moderate sedation," and "deep sedation."

Results and Conclusions

Over the past few decades, the shift toward in-office invasive procedures has increased patient convenience and decreased hospital resource utilization. Many tools exist to reduce patient anxiety and discomfort in an office-based setting. With proper patient selection and technique, facial plastic surgeons can adequately anesthetize patients to perform Mohs reconstruction, cutaneous excisions, blepharoplasty, face-lifts, and other in-office procedures.

Reducing Risk for Perioperative Anesthesia Complications

Aging patients and outpatient settings add complexity to the anesthetic management of facial plastic surgery, which emphasizes a quiet surgical field and smooth perioperative journey, absent rocky emergence phenomena, postoperative nausea and vomiting, prolonged post-anesthesia care unit stays, or last-minute hospital admissions. Monitored anesthesia care can be ideal with proper patient selection and a conscientious provider, although overlooking potential risks has led to catastrophic consequences, including burns, hypoxic brain injury, and death. Inherently isolated, emergency preparedness is more crucial in outpatient settings, and includes emergency training and protocol availability along with the appropriate stock of emergency equipment and medication, including dantrolene and lipid emulsion.

Enhanced Recovery After Aesthetic Breast Surgery Under Sedation, Intercostal Block and Tumescent Anaesthesia: A Prospective Cohort Study of the Early Postoperative Phase

BACKGROUND

Comfort and recovery are major concerns of patients seeking aesthetic surgery. This study aimed to assess postoperative pain and recovery after outpatient breast surgery under sedation, intercostal block, and local anaesthesia.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included all consecutive patients who underwent aesthetic breast surgery between April 2021 and August 2022. Epidemiological data, anaesthesia, pain, and patients' satisfaction were systematically assessed with standardized self-assessment questionnaires.

RESULTS

Altogether, 48 patients [median (IQR) age: 30 (36-25)] were included. The most frequent surgery was mastopexy. 69% of surgeries involved additional procedures. The mean intercostal block and local anaesthesia time was 15 min. Patients received a median (IQR) of 19 (34-2) mg/kg lidocaine and 2.3 (2.5-2.0) mg/kg ropivacaine. The median (IQR) consumption of propofol and alfentanil was, respectively, 4.89 (5.48-4.26) mg/kg/h and 0.27 (0.39-0.19) µg/kg/min. No conversion to general anaesthesia or unplanned hospital admission occurred. Patients were discharged after a median (IQR) of 2:40 (3:43-1:58) hours. Within the first 24 postoperative hours, 17% required once an antiemetic medication and 38% an opioid. Patients were very satisfied with the anaesthesia and 90% of the patients had not wished more analgesia in the first 24 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Aesthetic breast surgery under sedation, intercostal block, and tumescent anaesthesia can safely be performed as an ambulatory procedure and is associated with minimal intra- and postoperative opioid consumption and high patient satisfaction. These data may be used to inform patients and clinicians and improve the overall quality of care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Effects of Systemic Lidocaine Versus Dexmedetomidine on the Recovery Quality and Analgesia After Thyroid Cancer Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Surgical management is commonly used for thyroid cancer. We evaluated the effects of systemic lidocaine versus dexmedetomidine on the recovery quality and analgesia after thyroid cancer surgery.

METHODS

A total of 120 patients with thyroid cancer were randomly allocated to group L (received lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg loading, continuously infused 1.5 mg/kg per hour), group D (received dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg/kg loading, continuously infused 0.5 µg/kg per hour) and group C (received normal saline), with 40 cases in each group. Anaesthesia induction and maintenance were performed using target-controlled infusions (TCIs) of propofol and remifentanil. The primary outcome of the quality of recovery-15 (QoR-15) score was recorded on the day before surgery and postoperative day 1 (POD1). Secondary outcomes included the consumption of remifentanil during surgery, time to first required rescue analgesia, number of patients requiring rescue analgesia, postoperative cumulative consumption of tramadol, visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting (PONV) and side effects.

RESULTS

The total score of the QoR-15 at POD1 (median, IQR) was higher in group L (128.0, 122.0-132.8) and group D (127.5, 122.5-132.5) compared to group C (118.5, 113.0-123.5) (P = 0.000). Compared to group C, systemic lidocaine and dexmedetomidine reduced cumulative consumption of remifentanil and VAS pain score (P = 0.000). The time to first required rescue analgesia (mean, SD) was longer in group L (8.1 h, 1.2 h) and group D (8.5 h, 1.9 h) than group C (5.9 h, 0.9 h) (P = 0.000). The number of patients requiring rescue analgesia was lower in group L (8/40, 20%) and group D (6/40, 15%) than group C (16/40, 40%) (P = 0.029), and cumulative consumption of tramadol (mean, SD) was lower in group L (44.0 mg, 17.1 mg) and group D (51.7 mg, 14.1 mg) than group C (73.9 mg, 18.4 mg) (P = 0.000). The incidence of PONV in group L (7/40, 17.5%) and group D (9/40, 22.5%) was lower than group C (18/40, 45.0%) (P = 0.016). Bradycardia (heart rate  less than 50 beats/min or lower) was noted in 25 patients (25/40, 62.5%), which was reversed by intravenous administration of atropine 0.5 mg.

CONCLUSION

Systemic lidocaine and dexmedetomidine had similar effects on enhancing the quality of recovery, alleviating the intensity of pain and reducing the incidence of PONV after thyroid cancer surgery. However, dexmedetomidine may result in bradycardia. Therefore, lidocaine was superior to dexmedetomidine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR.org.cn (ChiCTR2000038442). Registered on September 22, 2020.