Balanced Opioid-free Anesthesia with Dexmedetomidine versus Balanced Anesthesia with Remifentanil for Major or Intermediate Noncardiac Surgery

Isoflurane anesthesia decreases excitability of inhibitory neurons in the basolateral amygdala leading to anxiety‑like behavior in aged mice

Anxiety after surgery can be a major factor leading to postoperative cognitive dysfunction, particularly in elderly patients. The role of inhibitory neurons in the basolateral amygdala (BLA) in anxiety-like behaviors in aged mice following isoflurane anesthesia remains unclear. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the role of inhibitory neurons in isoflurane-treated mice. A total of 30 C57BL/6 mice (age, 13 months) were allocated into the control and isoflurane anesthesia groups (15 mice/group) and were then subjected to several neurological assessments. Behavioral testing using an elevated plus maze test showed that aged mice in the isoflurane anesthesia group displayed significant anxiety-like behavior, since they spent more time in the closed arm, exhibited more wall climbing behavior and covered more distance. In addition, whole-cell patch-clamp recording revealed that the excitability of the BLA excitatory neurons was notably increased following mice anesthesia with isoflurane, while that of inhibitory neurons was markedly reduced. Following mice treatment with diazepam, the excitability of the BLA inhibitory neurons was notably increased compared with that of the excitatory neurons, which was significantly attenuated. Overall, the results of the current study indicated that anxiety-like behavior could occur in aged mice after isoflurane anesthesia, which could be caused by a reduced excitability of the inhibitory neurons in the BLA area. This process could enhance excitatory neuronal activity in aged mice, thus ultimately promoting the onset of anxiety-like behaviors.

Opioid-Free Using Ketamine versus Opioid-Sparing Anesthesia during the Intraoperative Period in Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Opioids effectively manage perioperative pain but have numerous adverse effects. Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) eliminates intraoperative opioid use; however, evidence for its use in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is limited. This study assessed the effect of OFA using ketamine in VATS patients compared to opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA). A total of 91 patients undergoing VATS lobectomy or segmentectomy were randomized to either the OFA group (ketamine) or the OSA group (remifentanil). The primary outcome was the quality of recovery (QoR) on postoperative day (POD) 1, measured with the QoR-40 questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain scores and adverse events. Both groups had comparable baseline and surgical characteristics. On POD 1, the QoR-40 score was higher in the OFA group than in the OSA group (164.3 ± 10.8 vs. 158.7 ± 10.6; mean difference: 5.6, 95% CI: 1.1, 10.0; p = 0.015), though this did not meet the pre-specified minimal clinically important difference of 6.3. The visual analog scale score was lower in the OFA group as compared to the OSA group at 0-1 h (4.2 ± 2.3 vs. 6.2 ± 2.1; p < 0.001) and 1-4 h after surgery (3.4 ± 1.8 vs. 4.6 ± 1.9; p = 0.003). The OFA group had a lower incidence of PONV (2 [4.4%] vs. 9 [19.6%]; p = 0.049) and postoperative shivering (4 [8.9%] vs. 13 [28.3%]; p = 0.030) than the OSA group at 0-1 h after surgery. Using OFA with ketamine proved feasible, as indicated by the stable intraoperative hemodynamics and absence of intraoperative awareness. Patients undergoing VATS with OFA using ketamine showed a statistically significant, but clinically insignificant, QoR improvement compared to those receiving OSA with remifentanil.

Opioid-free anesthesia with esketamine-dexmedetomidine versus opioid-based anesthesia with propofol-remifentanil in shoulder arthroscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

OFA (Opioid-free anesthesia) has the potential to reduce the occurrence of opioid-related adverse events and enhance postoperative recovery. Our research aimed to investigate whether OFA, combining esketamine and dexmedetomidine, could serve as an alternative protocol to traditional OBA (opioid-based anesthesia) in shoulder arthroscopy, particularly in terms of reducing PONV (postoperative nausea and vomiting).

METHODS

A total of 60 patients treated with shoulder arthroscopy from September 2021 to September 2022 were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to the OBA group (n = 30) and OFA group (n = 30), receiving propofol-remifentanil TIVA (total intravenous anesthesia) and esketamine-dexmedetomidine intravenous anesthesia, respectively. Both groups received ultrasound-guided ISBPB(interscalene brachial plexus block)for postoperative analgesia.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV on the first postoperative day in the ward (13.3% vs. 40%, P < 0.05) was significantly lower in the OFA group than in the OBA group. Moreover, the severity of PONV was less severe in the OFA group than in the OBA group in PACU (post-anesthesia care unit) (0 [0, 0] vs. 0 [0, 3], P<0.05 ) and in the ward 24 h postoperatively ( 0 [0, 0] vs. 0 [0, 2.25], P<0.05). Additionally, the OFA group experienced a significantly shorter length of stay in the PACU compared to the OBA group (39.4 ± 6.76 min vs. 48.7 ± 7.90 min, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the OBA with propofol-remifentanil, the OFA with esketamine- dexmedetomidine proved to be feasible for shoulder arthroscopy, resulting in a reduced incidence of PONV and a shorter duration of stay in the PACU.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No: ChiCTR2100047355), 12/06/2021.

Opioid-free general anesthesia: considerations, techniques, and limitations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss the role of opioids during general anesthesia and examine their advantages and risks in the context of clinical practice. We define opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) as the absolute avoidance of intraoperative opioids.

RECENT FINDINGS

In most minimally invasive and short-duration procedures, nonopioid analgesics, analgesic adjuvants, and local/regional analgesia can significantly spare the amount of intraoperative opioid needed. OFA should be considered in the context of tailoring to a specific patient and procedure, not as a universal approach. Strategies considered for OFA involve several adjuncts with low therapeutic range, requiring continuous infusions and resources, with potential for delayed recovery or other side effects, including increased short-term and long-term pain. No evidence indicates that OFA leads to decreased long-term opioid-related harms.

SUMMARY

Complete avoidance of intraoperative opioids remains questionable, as it does not necessarily ensure avoidance of postoperative opioids. Multimodal analgesia including local/regional anesthesia may allow OFA for selected, minimally invasive surgeries, but further research is necessary in surgeries with high postoperative opioid requirements. Until there is definitive evidence regarding procedure and patient-specific combinations as well as the dose and duration of administration of adjunct agents, it is imperative to practice opioid-sparing approach in the intraoperative period.

Effectiveness of implementing a standardized perioperative pain management protocol in children undergoing tonsillectomy: A quality improvement project

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Tonsillectomy procedures are commonly performed worldwide. At our academic tertiary care facility, we perform approximately 1000 tonsillectomy procedures annually. We have found inconsistent pain management strategies in pediatric tonsillectomy patients have contributed to variability in postoperative complications and the number and types of postoperative pain medications required in the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU). This project aimed to assess the impact of implementing a standardized perioperative pain management protocol on reducing postoperative complications in pediatric patients who underwent a tonsillectomy procedure.

METHODS

A pre-post-intervention design was utilized, comparing characteristics and outcomes of pediatric patients for whom a standardized perioperative pain management protocol was implemented over a 12-week period compared to those who did not. The standardized perioperative pain management protocol was utilized intraoperatively by the anesthesiologists, nurse anesthetists, and residents. A Qualtrics survey was used by the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) nurses to gather data as they cared for patients who underwent tonsillectomy. Four outcomes were measured: (1) postoperative pain medication administration, (2) rate of postoperative respiratory complications, (3) rate of adherence, and (4) usability of a standardized pain management protocol. Data were compared between pre and post-implementation groups.

RESULTS

During the quality improvement project, 180 children underwent tonsillectomy, with 81 in the control group and 99 in the intervention group. The median age did not differ between groups. The control group had higher postoperative opioid medication usage (93.8% vs. 54.5%) and a higher number of opioids administered in the recovery room. Postoperative IV fentanyl was reduced in the intervention group (49.4% vs. 28.3% in the intervention, p = .004). Respiratory interventions were more frequent in the control group (24.7% vs. 7.1%), with increased respiratory team activation. Respiratory team activation in the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) includes a 511 page for anesthesia provider assistance. Respiratory interventions included bag-mask ventilation, lidocaine, propofol or succinylcholine administration, and reintubation. The intervention group had 100% adherence to the pain management protocol, and providers found it easy to use.

CONCLUSION

The quality improvement project highlighted notable improvements in the intervention group for whom a standardized perioperative pain management protocol was used, including reduced opioid medication administration, lower incidence of respiratory interventions, and high adherence to the pain management protocol. These findings underscore the effectiveness and feasibility of standardized protocols in enhancing patient outcomes.

Effect of modified opioid sparing anaesthesia on postoperative quality of recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery: protocol for a monocentre, double-blind randomised controlled trial - the MOSA study

INTRODUCTION

Obesity patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery (LBS) are frequently encountered perioperative adverse events related to opioids-based anaesthesia (OBA) or opioids-free anaesthesia (OFA). While modified opioid-sparing anaesthesia (MOSA) has been shown to lower the occurrence of adverse events related to OBA and OFA. This study is to assess the efficacy of MOSA in enhancing the recovery quality among individuals undergoing LBS.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A single-centre, prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial is conducted at a tertiary hospital. A total of 74 eligible participants undergoing elective LBS will be recruited and randomly allocated. Patients in the MOSA group will receive a combination of low-dose opioids, minimal dexmedetomidine, esketamine and lidocaine, while in the OBA group will receive standard general anaesthesia with opioids. Patients in both groups will receive standard perioperative care. The primary outcome is the quality of recovery-15 score assessed at 24 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes include pain levels, anxiety and depression assessments, gastrointestinal function recovery, perioperative complication rates, opioid consumption and length of hospital stay.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been provided by the Ethical Committee of Yan'an Hospital of Kunming City (approval No. 2023-240-01). Eligible patients will provide written informed consent to the investigator. The outcomes of this trial will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study protocol is registered at https://www.chictr.org.cn/ on 19 December 2023. (identifier: ChiCTR2300078806). The trial was conducted using V.1.0.

Comparison of opioid-free and opioid-inclusive propofol anaesthesia for thyroid and parathyroid surgery: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting occur frequently following thyroid and parathyroid surgery and are associated with worse patient outcomes. We hypothesised that opioid-free propofol anaesthesia would reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with opioid-inclusive propofol anaesthesia in patients undergoing these procedures.

METHODS

We conducted a randomised, double-blinded controlled trial in adult patients scheduled to undergo thyroid and parathyroid surgery at two medical centres in mainland China. Patients were allocated randomly (1:1, stratified by sex and trial site) to an opioid-free anaesthesia group (esketamine, lidocaine, dexmedetomidine and propofol) or an opioid-inclusive group (sufentanil and propofol). Propofol infusions were titrated to bispectral index 45-55. Patients received prophylaxis for nausea and vomiting using dexamethasone and ondansetron and multimodal analgesia with paracetamol and flurbiprofen axetil. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the first 48 h after surgery.

RESULTS

We assessed 557 patients for eligibility and 394 completed this trial. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the first postoperative 48 h was lower in the opioid-free anaesthesia group (10/197, 5%) compared with opioid-inclusive group (47/197, 24%) (OR (95%CI) 0.17 (0.08-0.35), p < 0.001), yielding a number needed to treat of 5.3. Additionally, opioid-free propofol anaesthesia was associated with a reduced need for rescue anti-emetics, lower rates of hypotension and desaturation after tracheal extubation, and higher patient satisfaction. Time to tracheal extubation was prolonged slightly in the opioid-free group. The two groups had similar postoperative pain scores and 30-day outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Opioid-free propofol anaesthesia reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing thyroid and parathyroid surgery. An opioid-free anaesthetic regimen can optimise anaesthetic care during thyroid and parathyroid surgery.

Mapping Theme Trends and Research Frontiers in Dexmedetomidine Over Past Decade: A Bibliometric Analysis

Background

Dexmedetomidine, an α2-adrenergic receptor (α2-AR) agonist, is extensively used in clinical and animal studies owing to its sedative, analgesic, and anxiolytic effects. The diverse range of research domains associated with dexmedetomidine poses challenges in defining pivotal research directions. Therefore, this study aimed to conduct a qualitative and quantitative bibliometric study in the field of dexmedetomidine over the past decade to establish current research trends and emerging frontiers.

Methods

Relevant publications in the field of dexmedetomidine between 2014 and 2023 were extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection database. The bibliometric analysis, incorporating statistical and visual analyses, was conducted using CiteSpace (6.1.R6) and R (4.3.1).

Results

The present study encompassed a total of 5,482 publications, exhibiting a consistent upward trend over the past decade. The United States and its institutions had the highest centrality. Ji, Fuhai, and Ebert, Thomas J. were identified as the most productive author and the most cited author, respectively. As anticipated, the most cited journal was Anesthesiology. Moreover, cluster analysis of cited references and co-occurrence of keywords revealed that recent studies were primarily focused on sedation, delirium, and opioid-free anesthesia. Finally, a timeline view of keywords clusters and keywords burst demonstrated that primary research frontiers were stress response, neuroinflammation, delirium, opioid-free anesthesia, peripheral nerve block, and complications.

Conclusion

Current research trends and directions are focused on sedation, delirium, and opioid-free anesthesia, as evidenced by our results. The frontier of future research is anticipated to encompass basic investigations into dexmedetomidine, including stress response and neuroinflammation, as well as clinical studies focusing on delirium, opioid-free anesthesia, peripheral nerve block, and associated complications.

Postoperative opioid-free analgesia in dogs undergoing tibial plateau leveling osteotomy: a feasibility study

Objectives

This study was designed to prospectively evaluate the feasibility of an opioid-free anesthesia protocol and describe the quality of recovery and management of postoperative analgesia in dogs after a tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (TPLO).

Methods

In total, 20 dogs presented for TPLO were included. After premedication with intravenous (IV) medetomidine (0.005-0.007 mg/kg) and midazolam (0.2 mg/kg), the dogs were anesthetized using ketamine (2 mg/kg) and propofol and maintained with isoflurane and ketamine CRI (0.6 mg/kg/h). Sciatic and femoral nerve blocks were performed with bupivacaine 0.5% (0.087 +/- 0.01 and 0.09 +/- 0.02 mL/kg, respectively). Meloxicam (0.2 mg/kg IV) was administered intraoperatively, after osteotomy. Fentanyl (0.002 mg/kg IV) was administered intraoperatively, as rescue analgesia in the case of sustained increase in cardiorespiratory variables. Two pain scores (French 4A-VET and Glasgow short form) were performed at conscious sternal recumbency and 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 20 h after extubation and compared to baseline using a Friedman test followed by a Nemenyi post-hoc test. The time taken for the first food intake and urination was reported.

Results

Intraoperative opioid-free anesthesia was feasible in 11 dogs, whereas 9 dogs received fentanyl once during arthrotomy. No opioid postoperative rescue analgesia was required. Food intake occurred within 6 h, and all dogs were discharged after 24 h without any complication.

Conclusion

Total opioid-free postoperative analgesia was achieved in all dogs, with adequate recoveries. Although opioid-free anesthesia was feasible in 55% of the population, a single dose of fentanyl was necessary in 45% of the dogs during arthrotomy.

Influence of psychological factors and pain sensitivity on the efficacy of opioid-free anesthesia: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the effects of opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) in laparoscopic gastrectomy and identify the psychological factors that could influence the efficacy of OFA.

METHOD

120 patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy were allocated to either the opioid-based anesthesia group (OA) (n = 60) or the OFA (n = 60) group. Remifentanil was administered to the OA group intraoperatively, whereas dexmedetomidine and lidocaine were administered to the OFA group. The interaction effect of the psychological factors on OFA was analyzed using the aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses.

RESULTS

The opioid requirement for 24 h after surgery was lower in the OFA group than in the OA group (fentanyl equivalent dose 727 vs. 650 μg, p = 0.036). The effect of OFA was influenced by the pain catastrophizing scale (p = 0.041), temporal pain summation (p = 0.046), and pressure pain tolerance (p = 0.034). This indicates that patients with pain catastrophizing or high pain sensitivity significantly benefited from OFA, whereas patients without these characteristics did not.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that OFA with dexmedetomidine and lidocaine effectively reduced the postoperative 24-h opioid requirements following laparoscopic gastrectomy, which was modified by baseline pain catastrophizing and pain sensitivity.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Yonsei University Health System Gangnam Severance Hospital (#3-2021-0295) and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05076903).

Pharmacologic prevention and therapy of postoperative paralytic ileus after gastrointestinal cancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative paralytic ileus (POI) is a significant concern following gastrointestinal tumor surgery. Effective preventive and therapeutic strategies are crucial but remain elusive. Current evidence from randomized-controlled trials on pharmacological interventions for prevention or treatment of POI are systematically reviewed to guide clinical practice and future research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature was systematically searched for prospective randomized-controlled trials testing pharmacological interventions for prevention or treatment of POI after gastrointestinal tumor surgery. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model to determine risk ratios and mean differences with 95% CI. Risk of bias and evidence quality were assessed.

RESULTS

Results from 55 studies, involving 5078 patients who received experimental interventions, indicate that approaches of opioid-sparing analgesia, peripheral opioid antagonism, reduction of sympathetic hyperreactivity, and early use of laxatives effectively prevent POI. Perioperative oral Alvimopan or intravenous administration of Lidocaine or Dexmedetomidine, while safe regarding cardio-pulmonary complications, demonstrated effectiveness concerning various aspects of postoperative bowel recovery [Lidocaine: -5.97 (-7.20 to -4.74)h, P <0.0001; Dexmedetomidine: -13.00 (-24.87 to -1.14)h, P =0.03 for time to first defecation; Alvimopan: -15.33 (-21.22 to -9.44)h, P <0.0001 for time to GI-2 ] and length of hospitalization [Lidocaine: -0.67 (-1.24 to -0.09)d, P =0.02; Dexmedetomidine: -1.28 (-1.96 to -0.60)d, P =0.0002; Alvimopan: -0.58 (-0.84 to -0.32)d, P <0.0001] across wide ranges of evidence quality. Perioperative nonopioid analgesic use showed efficacy concerning bowel recovery as well as length of hospitalization [-1.29 (-1.95 to -0.62)d, P =0.0001]. Laxatives showed efficacy regarding bowel movements, but not food tolerance and hospitalization. Evidence supporting pharmacological treatment for clinically evident POI is limited. Results from one single study suggest that Neostigmine reduces time to flatus and accelerates bowel movements [-37.06 (-40.26 to -33.87)h, P <0.0001 and -42.97 (-47.60 to -38.35)h, P <0.0001, respectively] with low evidence quality.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence concerning pharmacological prevention and treatment of POI following gastrointestinal tumor surgery is limited. Opioid-sparing concepts, reduction of sympathetic hyperreactivity, and laxatives should be implemented into multimodal perioperative approaches.

Effect of an opioid-free anesthetic on postoperative opioid consumption after laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Opioid administration has the benefit of providing perioperative analgesia but is also associated with adverse effects. Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) may reduce postoperative opioid consumption and adverse effects after laparoscopic bariatric surgery. In this randomized controlled study, we hypothesized that an opioid-free anesthetic using lidocaine, ketamine, and dexmedetomidine would result in a clinically significant reduction in 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption when compared with an opioid-inclusive technique.

METHODS

Subjects presenting for laparoscopic or robotic bariatric surgery were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either standard opioid-inclusive anesthesia (group A: control) or OFA (group B: OFA). The primary outcome was opioid consumption in the first 24 hours postoperatively in oral morphine equivalents (OMEs). Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain scores, patient-reported incidence of opioid-related adverse effects, hospital length of stay, patient satisfaction, and ongoing opioid use at 1 and 3 months after hospital discharge.

RESULTS

181 subjects, 86 from the control group and 95 from the OFA group, completed the study per protocol. Analysis of the primary outcome showed no significant difference in total opioid consumption at 24 hours between the two treatment groups (control: 52 OMEs vs OFA: 55 OMEs, p=0.49). No secondary outcomes showed statistically significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that an OFA protocol using dexmedetomidine, ketamine, and lidocaine for laparoscopic or robotic bariatric surgery was not associated with a reduction in 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption when compared with an opioid-inclusive technique using fentanyl.

Opioid-free anaesthesia with dexmedetomidine and lidocaine versus remifentanil-based anaesthesia in cardiac surgery: study protocol of a French randomised, multicentre and single-blinded OFACS trial

INTRODUCTION

Intraoperative opioids have been used for decades to reduce negative responses to nociception. However, opioids may have several, and sometimes serious, adverse effects. Cardiac surgery exposes patients to a high risk of postoperative complications, some of which are common to those caused by opioids: acute respiratory failure, postoperative cognitive dysfunction, postoperative ileus (POI) or death. An opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) strategy, based on the use of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine, may limit these adverse effects, but no randomised trials on this issue have been published in cardiac surgery.We hypothesised that OFA versus opioid-based anaesthesia (OBA) may reduce the incidence of major opioid-related complications after cardiac surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Multicentre, randomised, parallel and single-blinded clinical trial in four cardiac surgical centres in France, including 268 patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass grafting under cardiac bypass, with or without aortic valve replacement. Patients will be randomised to either a control OBA protocol using remifentanil or an OFA protocol using dexmedetomidine/lidocaine. The primary composite endpoint is the occurrence of at least one of the following: (1) postoperative cognitive disorder evaluated by the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit test, (2) POI, (3) acute respiratory distress or (4) death within the first 48 postoperative hours. Secondary endpoints are postoperative pain, morphine consumption, nausea-vomiting, shock, acute kidney injury, atrioventricular block, pneumonia and length of hospital stay.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial has been approved by an independent ethics committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Ouest III-Angers on 23 February 2021). Results will be submitted in international journals for peer reviewing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04940689, EudraCT 2020-002126-90.

Opioid-free versus opioid-based anesthesia in major spine surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Major spine surgery is associated with severe postoperative pain and increased opioid consumption. Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is thought to provide adequate intraoperative analgesia with reduced postoperative opioid consumption. The aim of this study is to compare the impact of intraoperative OFA approach to the conventional opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) on postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and related side effects in patients undergoing multilevel spinal fusion surgery.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients undergoing elective major spine surgery were randomly allocated to either receive intraoperative dexmedetomidine and lidocaine (OFA group) or fentanyl during induction and intraoperative remifentanil (OBA group). All patients received intraoperative sevoflurane, propofol, rocuronium, ketamine, dexamethasone, ondansetron and postoperative paracetamol and patient-controlled analgesia device set to deliver intravenous morphine for 48 hours after surgery. Postoperative pain was measured using numerical rating scale. Opioid side effects were documented, when present.

RESULTS

OFA group required less morphine in the first 24 hours post-surgery (17.28±12.25 mg versus 27.96±19.75 mg, P<0.05). The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was significantly lower in the OFA group. More patients in the OFA group required antihypertensive medications compared to patients in the OBA group (P<0.05). In the post anesthesia care unit, OFA patients had a significantly longer stay than OBA patients (114.1±49.33 min versus 89.96±30.71 min, P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

OFA can be an alternative to OBA in patients undergoing multilevel spine fusion surgery. OFA reduces opioids consumption in the first 24 hours and PONV.

Opioid-Free Anesthesia in Bariatric Surgery: Is It the One and Only? A Comprehensive Review of the Current Literature

Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is a heterogeneous group of general anesthesia techniques in which the intraoperative use of opioids is eliminated. This strategy aims to decrease the risk of complications and improve the patient's safety and comfort. Such potential advantages are particularly beneficial for selected groups of patients, among them obese patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Opioids have been traditionally used as an element of balanced anesthesia, and replacing them requires using a combination of coanalgesics and various types of local and regional anesthesia, which also have their side effects, limitations, and potential disadvantages. Moreover, despite the growing amount of evidence, the empirical data on the superiority of OFA compared to standard anesthesia with multimodal analgesia are contradictory, and potential benefits in many studies are being questioned. Additionally, little is known about the long-term sequelae of such a strategy. Considering the above-mentioned issues, this study aims to present the potential benefits, risks, and difficulties of implementing OFA in bariatric surgery, considering the current state of knowledge and literature.

Balanced opioid-free anesthesia with lidocaine and esketamine versus balanced anesthesia with sufentanil for gynecological endoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled trial

In this randomized controlled trial, 74 patients scheduled for gynecological laparoscopic surgery (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I/II) were enrolled and randomly divided into two study groups: (i) Group C (control), received sufentanil (0.3 μg/kg) and saline, followed by sufentanil (0.1 μg/kg∙h) and saline; and (ii) Group F (OFA), received esketamine (0.15 mg/kg) and lidocaine (2 mg/kg), followed by esketamine (0.1 mg/kg∙h) and lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg∙h). The primary outcome was the 48-h time-weighted average (TWA) of postoperative pain scores. Secondary outcomes included time to extubation, adverse effects, and postoperative sedation score, pain scores at different time points, analgesic consumption at 48 h, and gastrointestinal functional recovery. The 48-h TWAs of pain scores were 1.32 (0.78) (95% CI 1.06-1.58) and 1.09 (0.70) (95% CI 0.87-1.33) for Groups F and C, respectively. The estimated difference between Groups F and C was - 0.23 (95% CI - 0.58 - 0.12; P = 0.195). No differences were found in any of the secondary outcomes and no severe adverse effects were observed in either group. Balanced OFA with lidocaine and esketamine achieved similar effects to balanced anesthesia with sufentanil in patients undergoing elective gynecological laparoscopic surgery, without severe adverse effects.Clinical Trial Registration: ChiCTR2300067951, www.chictr.org.cn 01 February, 2023.

Dexmedetomidine improves pulmonary outcomes in thoracic surgery under one-lung ventilation: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Dexmedetomidine improves intrapulmonary shunt in thoracic surgery and minimizes inflammatory response during one-lung ventilation (OLV). However, it is unclear whether such benefits translate into less postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Our objective was to determine the impact of dexmedetomidine on the incidence of PPCs after thoracic surgery.

METHODS

Major databases were used to identify randomized trials that compared dexmedetomidine versus placebo during thoracic surgery in terms of PPCs. Our primary outcome was atelectasis within 7 days after surgery. Other specific PPCs included hypoxemia, pneumonia, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Secondary outcome included intraoperative respiratory mechanics (respiratory compliance [Cdyn]) and postoperative lung function (forced expiratory volume [FEV1]). Random effects models were used to estimate odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

Twelve randomized trials, including 365 patients in the dexmedetomidine group and 359 in the placebo group, were analyzed in this meta-analysis. Patients in the dexmedetomidine group were less likely to develop postoperative atelectasis (2.3% vs 6.8%, OR 0.42, 95%CI 0.18-0.95, P = 0.04; low certainty) and hypoxemia (3.4% vs 11.7%, OR 0.26, 95%CI 0.10-0.68, P = 0.01; moderate certainty) compared to the placebo group. The incidence of postoperative pneumonia (3.2% vs 5.8%, OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.25-1.26, P = 0.17; moderate certainty) or ARDS (0.9% vs 3.5%, OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.07-2.08, P = 0.27; moderate certainty) was comparable between groups. Both intraoperative Cdyn and postoperative FEV1 were higher among patients that received dexmedetomidine with a mean difference of 4.42 mL/cmH2O (95%CI 3.13-5.72) and 0.27 L (95%CI 0.12-0.41), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine administration during thoracic surgery may potentially reduce the risk of postoperative atelectasis and hypoxemia. However, current evidence is insufficient to demonstrate an effect on pneumonia or ARDS.

Comparison of patient-controlled analgesia and sedation (PCAS) with remifentanil and propofol versus total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is a commonly performed gastroenterological procedure in patients associated with anxiety and pain. Various approaches have been used to provide sedation and analgesia during colonoscopy, including patient-controlled analgesia and sedation (PCAS). This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and efficiency of PCAS administered with propofol and remifentanil for colonoscopy.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial was performed in an authorized and approved endoscopy center. A total of 80 outpatients were recruited for the colonoscopy studies. Patients were randomly allocated into PCAS and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) groups. In the PCAS group, the dose of 0.1 ml/kg/min of the mixture was injected after an initial bolus of 3 ml mixture (1 ml containing 3 mg of propofol and 10 μg of remifentanil). Each 1 ml of bolus was delivered with a lockout time of 1 min. In the TIVA group, patients were administered fentanyl 1 μg/kg, midazolam 0.02 mg/kg, and propofol (dosage titrated). Cardiorespiratory parameters and auditory evoked response index were continuously monitored during the procedure. The recovery from anesthesia was assessed using the Aldrete scale and the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale. The Visual Analogue Scale was used to assess the satisfaction of patients and endoscopists.

RESULTS

No statistical differences were observed in the Visual Analogue Scale scores of the patients (9.58 vs 9.50) and the endoscopist (9.43 vs 9.30). A significant decline in the mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate, and auditory evoked response index parameters was recorded in the TIVA group (P < 0.05). The recovery time was significantly shorter in the PCAS group than in the TIVA group (P = 0.00).

CONCLUSION

The combination of remifentanil and propofol could provide sufficient analgesia, better hemodynamic stability, lighter sedation, and faster recovery in the PCAS group of patients compared with the TIVA group.

Opioid-Sparing Anesthesia Versus Opioid-Free Anesthesia for the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting after Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients who undergo laparoscopic bariatric surgery (LBS) are susceptible to postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) or opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA) protocols have been proposed as solutions; however, differences between the 2 alternative opioid protocols for anesthesia maintenance in obese patients remain uncertain. A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the impacts of OFA and OSA on PONV.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted using Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OFA and OSA strategies. After screening according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the credibility of the evidence. The main concern of this review was the difference between OFA and OSA in reducing PONV. The primary outcome was any PONV occurrence within 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain intensity, opioid consumption, opioid-related adverse events, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Fifteen RCTs involving 1310 patients were identified for a network meta-analysis from 1776 articles that compared OFA, OSA, and traditional opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) strategies in LBS. Twelve RCTs (80%) with 922 participants (70%) were eligible for the occurrence of PONV. These included 199 (22%) patients who received OFA and 476 (52%) and 247 (27%) patients who received OSA and OBA, respectively. OFA was more effective at reducing PONV (relative risks [RR], 0.6, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-0.9, moderate-quality evidence) compared to OSA. No differences were observed in postoperative pain control or opioid consumption between the OFA and OSA strategies (very low-to high-quality evidence). Notably, OFA is associated with a higher risk of bradycardia than OSA (RR, 2.6, 95% CI, 1.2-5.9, moderate-quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

OFA is more effective than OSA in reducing the occurrence of PONV during the early postoperative period of LBS, although it may associate with an increased risk of bradycardia. Patients who received either opioid-alternative strategy demonstrated similar effects in reducing postoperative opioid consumption and alleviating pain intensity.

Opioid-free Anesthesia Protocol on the Early Quality of Recovery after Major Surgery (SOFA Trial): A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Opioid-free anesthesia is increasingly being adopted to reduce opioid consumption, but its impact on early postoperative recovery after major surgery has not been evaluated in comparative trials. The hypothesis was that an opioid-free anesthesia protocol would enhance the early quality of recovery for patients undergoing scheduled major surgery under general anesthesia.

METHODS

The SOFA study was a monocentric, randomized, controlled, assessor- and patient-blinded clinical trial conducted from July 10, 2021, to February 12, 2022. The eligible population included male and female patients undergoing scheduled major surgery, excluding bone procedures, that typically require opioids for postoperative pain management. Patients in the intervention group received a combination of at least two drugs among ketamine, lidocaine, clonidine, and magnesium sulfate, without opioids for anesthesia. The standard group received opioids. The primary outcome was early postoperative quality of recovery, assessed by Quality of Recovery-15 score at 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes were Quality of Recovery-15 at 48 and 72 h after surgery, incidence of chronic pain, and quality of life at 3 months.

RESULTS

Of the 136 randomized patients, 135 were included in the primary analysis (mean age, 45.9 ± 15.7 yr; 116 females [87.2%]; 85 underwent major plastic surgery [63.9%]), with 67 patients in the opioid-free anesthesia group and 68 in the standard group. The mean Quality of Recovery-15 at 24 h was 114.9 ± 15.2 in the opioid-free anesthesia group versus 108.7 ± 18.1 in the standard group (difference, 6.2; 95% CI, 0.4 to 12.0; P = 0.026). Quality of Recovery-15 scores also differed significantly at 48 h (difference, 8.7; 95% CI, 2.9 to 14.5; P = 0.004) and at 72 h (difference, 7.3; 95% CI, 1.6 to 13.0; P = 0.013). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes. No major adverse events were noticed.

CONCLUSIONS

The opioid-free anesthesia protocol improved quality of recovery after major elective surgery in a statistically but not clinically significant manner when compared to standard anesthesia.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

[Opioid-free anesthesia : Wrong track or meaningful exit from the era of opioid-based analgesia?]

The limitations and disadvantages of opioids in anesthesia are very well known but the advantages combined with a lack of effective alternatives even now still prevents refraining from using opioids as part of an adequate pain therapy. For decades, pain research has had the declared goal of replacing opioids with new substances which have no serious side effects; however, currently this goal seems to be a long way off. Due to the media coverage of the "opioid crisis" in North America, the use of opioids for pain management is also increasingly being questioned by the patients. Measures to contain this crisis are only slowly taking effect in view of the increasing number of deaths, which is why the triggers are still being sought. The perioperative administration of opioids is not only a possible gateway to addiction and abuse but it can also cause outcome-relevant complications, such as respiratory depression, postoperative nausea and vomiting and an increase in postoperative pain. Therefore, these considerations gave rise to the idea of an opioid-free anesthesia (OFA), i.e., opioids are not administered as part of anesthesia to carry out surgical procedures. Although this idea may make sense at first glance, a rapid introduction of this concept appears to be risky as it entails significant changes for the entire anesthesiological management. Based on relatively robust data from clinical studies, this concept can now be evaluated and discussed not only emotionally but also objectively. This review article presents arguments for or against the complete avoidance of intraoperative or even perioperative opioids. The current conditions in Germany are primarily taken into account, so that the perioperative pain therapy is transferable to the established standards. The results from current clinical studies on the implementation of an opioid-free anesthesia are summarized and discussed.

Opioid-free anesthesia using a combination of ketamine and dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Opioids administered as bolus doses or continuous infusions are widely used for major and daycare surgeries. Opioid-free anesthesia is multimodal anesthesia and analgesia that does not use opioids, benefiting patients from opioid-related adverse effects. We compared the postoperative analgesic requirements of patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy under opioid-free and opioid-based anesthesia.

METHODS

Study included 88 patients aged 18-60 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 and 2 who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Participants were randomly divided into two groups with 44 in each. The opioid-free group was administered an intravenous bolus of ketamine and dexmedetomidine, whereas fentanyl was used in opioid group. Primary outcome was to compare the total amount of fentanyl consumed by both groups during 6 h postoperative period. Episodes of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and vital signs were noted throughout the postoperative period to analyze the secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Both groups had similar demographic characteristics. The opioid-free group required lesser analgesia within the first 2 h (61.4 ± 17.4 vs. 79.0 ± 19.4 of fentanyl, P < 0.001), which was statistically significant. However, fentanyl consumption was comparable between the groups at 6 h (152 ± 28.2 vs. 164 ± 33.4, P = 0.061). Compared with 4.5% of the participants in the opioid-free group, 34% of those in the opioid-based group developed moderate PONV.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid-free anesthesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy reduced the requirement of analgesia in first two-hour postoperative period and was associated with decreased PONV.

Exploring the need for reconsideration of trial design in perioperative outcomes research: a narrative review

"Enhanced recovery after surgery" is a multimodal effort to control perioperative pathophysiology and improve outcome. However, despite advances in perioperative care, postoperative complications and the need for hospitalisation and prolonged recovery continue to be challenging. This is further complicated by procedure-specific and patient-associated risk factors, given the increase in the number of elderly and frail patients with multiple comorbidities undergoing surgery. This paper is a critical assessment of current methodology for trials in perioperative medicine. We make a plea to reconsider the design of future interventional trials to improve surgical outcome, based upon studies of potentially effective interventions, but often without improvements in recovery. The complexity of perioperative pathophysiology necessitates a procedure- and patient-specific approach whenever outcome is assessed or interventions are planned. With improved understanding of perioperative pathophysiology, the way to improve outcomes looks promising, provided that knowledge and established enhanced recovery programmes are integrated in trial design.

Funding

None.

Impact of intravenous dexmedetomidine on postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery: an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative ileus (POI) is a complication that may occur after abdominal or nonabdominal surgery. Intravenous dexmedetomidine (Dex) has been reported to accelerate postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery; however, updated evidence is required to confirm its robustness.

METHODS

To identify randomized controlled trials examining the effects of perioperative intravenous Dex on gastrointestinal function recovery in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library were searched on August 2023. The primary outcome was time to first flatus. Secondary outcomes included time to oral intake and defecation as well as postoperative pain scores, postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV), risk of hemodynamic instability, and length of hospital stay (LOS). To confirm its robustness, subgroup analyses and trial sequential analysis were performed.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis of 22 randomized controlled trials with 2566 patients showed that Dex significantly reduced the time to flatus [mean difference (MD):-7.19 h, P <0.00001), time to oral intake (MD: -6.44 h, P =0.001), time to defecation (MD:-13.84 h, P =0.008), LOS (MD:-1.08 days, P <0.0001), and PONV risk (risk ratio: 0.61, P <0.00001) without differences in hemodynamic stability and pain severity compared with the control group. Trial sequential analysis supported sufficient evidence favoring Dex for accelerating bowel function. Subgroup analyses confirmed the positive impact of Dex on the time to flatus across different surgical categories and sexes. However, this benefit has not been observed in studies conducted in regions outside China.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative intravenous Dex may enhance postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery and reduce LOS, thereby validating its use in patients for whom postoperative ileus is a significant concern.

Effect of opioid-free versus opioid-based strategies during multimodal anaesthesia on postoperative morphine consumption after bariatric surgery: a randomised double-blind clinical trial

Background

The efficacy and safety of opioid-free anaesthesia during bariatric surgery remain debated, particularly when administering multimodal analgesia. As multimodal analgesia has become the standard of care in many centres, we aimed to determine if such a strategy coupled with either dexmedetomidine (opioid-free anaesthesia) or remifentanil with a morphine transition (opioid-based anaesthesia), would reduce postoperative morphine requirements and opioid-related adverse events.

Methods

In this prospective double-blind study, 172 class III obese patients having laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery were randomly allocated to receive either sevoflurane-dexmedetomidine anaesthesia with a continuous infusion of lidocaine and ketamine (opioid-free group) or sevoflurane-remifentanil anaesthesia with a morphine transition (opioid-based group). Both groups received at anaesthesia induction a bolus of magnesium, lidocaine, ketamine, paracetamol, diclofenac, and dexamethasone. The primary outcome was 24-h postoperative morphine consumption. Secondary outcomes included postoperative quality of recovery (QoR40), incidence of hypoxaemia, bradycardia, and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

Results

Eighty-six patients were recruited in each group (predominantly women, 70% had obstructive sleep apnoea). There was no significant difference in postoperative morphine consumption (median [inter-quartile range]: 16 [13-26] vs 15 [10-24] mg, P=0.183). The QoR40 up to postoperative day 30 did not differ between groups, but PONV was less frequent in the opioid-free group (37% vs 59%, P=0.005). Hypoxaemia and bradycardia were not different between groups.

Conclusions

During bariatric surgery, a multimodal opioid-free anaesthesia technique did not decrease postoperative morphine consumption when compared with a multimodal opioid-based strategy. Quality of recovery did not differ between groups although the incidence of PONV was less in the opioid-free group.

Clinical trial registration

NCT05004519.

Effects of opioid-free anaesthesia compared with balanced general anaesthesia on nausea and vomiting after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a single-centre randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) has emerged as a promising approach for mitigating the adverse effects associated with opioids. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of OFA on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following video-assisted thoracic surgery.

DESIGN

Single-centre randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Tertiary hospital in Shanghai, China.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery were recruited from September 2021 to June 2022.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly allocated to OFA or traditional general anaesthesia with a 1:1 allocation ratio.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the incidence of PONV within 48 hours post-surgery, and the secondary outcomes included PONV severity, postoperative pain, haemodynamic changes during anaesthesia, and length of stay (LOS) in the recovery ward and hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 86 and 88 patients were included in the OFA and control groups, respectively. Two patients were excluded because of severe adverse events including extreme bradycardia and epilepsy-like convulsion. The incidence and severity of PONV did not significantly differ between the two groups (29 patients (33.0%) in the control group and 22 patients (25.6%) in the OFA group; relative risk 0.78, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.23; p=0.285). Notably, the OFA approach used was associated with an increase in heart rate (89±17 vs 77±15 beats/min, t-test: p<0.001; U test: p<0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (87±17 vs 80±13 mm Hg, t-test: p=0.003; U test: p=0.004) after trachea intubation. Conversely, the control group exhibited more median hypotensive events per patient (mean 0.5±0.8 vs 1.0±2.0, t-test: p=0.02; median 0 (0-4) vs 0 (0-15), U test: p=0.02) during surgery. Postoperative pain scores, and LOS in the recovery ward and hospital did not significantly differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study findings suggest that the implementation of OFA does not effectively reduce the incidence of PONV following thoracic surgery when compared with traditional total intravenous anaesthesia. The opioid-free strategy used in our study may be associated with severe adverse cardiovascular events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2100050738.

Opioid-free versus opioid-sparing anaesthesia in ambulatory total hip arthroplasty: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery pathways are essential for ambulatory surgery. They usually recommend lower intraoperative opioid use to avoid opioid-related adverse effects. This has led to opioid-sparing anaesthesia (OSA) techniques, with the extreme approach of opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) mostly with dexmedetomidine. As evidence is lacking in day-case primary total hip arthroplasty, this study was performed to assess the potential benefits in postoperative analgesia of OFA over OSA.

METHODS

In this single-centre, prospective, triple blind study, we randomly allocated 80 patients undergoing day-case primary THA under general anaesthesia. Patients received a total intravenous anaesthesia with a laryngeal mask and multimodal analgesic regimen with non-opioid analgesics. The OSA group received low dose of sufentanil, and the OFA group received dexmedetomidine The primary outcome was the opioid consumption in the first 24 h in oral morphine equivalents (OME).

RESULTS

There was no difference in median cumulative OME consumption at 24 h between the OSA and OFA groups (12 [0-25] mg vs 16 [0-30] mg, respectively; P=0.7). Pain scores were similar and low in both groups with comparable walking recovery time. Adverse events were sparse and equivalent in both groups except for dizziness, which was more frequent in the OSA group (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In day-case total hip arthoplasty under general anaesthesia, opioid-free anaesthesia and opioid-sparing anaesthesia both provide early recovery and effective postoperative pain relief. When compared with opioid-sparing anaesthesia, opioid-free anaesthesia does not decrease opioid consumption in the first 24 h. These findings do not suggest any significant benefit from complete intraoperative avoidance of opioids.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT0507270.

Comparison of Two Dexmedetomidine Administration Strategies on the Incidence of Postoperative Respiratory Complications: A Retrospective, Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighted Study

Randomized controlled trials have shown a higher risk of postoperative hypoxemia and delayed extubation with opioid-free anesthesia (OFA), compared with opioid anesthesia. The practice of OFA is not standardized. The objective of this study is to investigate the association between the dexmedetomidine administration protocol used and the occurrence of postoperative respiratory complications. This work is a retrospective, propensity score-adjusted study (inverse probability of treatment weighting) conducted between January 2019 and September 2021 in a French tertiary care university hospital, including 180 adult patients undergoing major digestive surgery. Comparison of 2 anesthesia protocols: with a continuous intravenous maintenance dose of dexmedetomidine following a bolus (group B+M, n = 105) or with a bolus dose alone (group B, n = 75). The main outcome measure was a composite respiratory end point within 24 hours of surgery. There was no significant difference in the incidence of overall respiratory complications, as assessed by the primary end point. Nevertheless, there were more patients with postoperative hypercapnia in group B+M than in group B (16% vs 2.5%, P = .004). Patients in group B+M were extubated later than patients in group B (group B+M, median 40 minutes, IQR 20-74 minutes; group B, median 20 minutes, IQR 10-50 minutes; P = .004). Our study showed negative results for the primary end point. However, data on the increased risk of postoperative hypercapnia in patients receiving a maintenance dose of dexmedetomidine are new. Other prospective randomized studies with greater power are necessary to confirm these data and to make OFA safer, by reducing the prescribed doses of dexmedetomidine.

Opioid-free anaesthesia reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting after thoracoscopic lung resection: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative opioid use has a positive relationship with postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) might reduce PONV. We investigated whether OFA compared with opioid-based anaesthesia would reduce PONV during the first 2 postoperative days among patients undergoing thoracoscopic lung resection.

METHODS

In this randomised controlled trial, 120 adult patients were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified by sex) to receive either OFA with esketamine, dexmedetomidine, and sevoflurane, or opioid-based anaesthesia with sufentanil and sevoflurane. A surgical pleth index (SPI) of 20-50 was applied for intraoperative analgesia provision. All subjects received PONV prophylaxis (dexamethasone and ondansetron) and multimodal analgesia (flurbiprofen axetil, ropivacaine wound infiltration, and patient-controlled sufentanil). The primary outcome was the occurrence of PONV during the first 48 h after surgery.

RESULTS

The median age was 53 yr and 66.7% were female. Compared with opioid-based anaesthesia, OFA significantly reduced the incidence of PONV (15% vs 31.7%; odds ratio [OR]=0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.91; number needed to treat, 6; P=0.031). Secondary and safety outcomes were comparable between groups, except that OFA led to a lower rate of vomiting (OR=0.23, 95% CI, 0.08-0.77) and a longer length of PACU stay (median difference=15.5 min, 95% CI, 10-20 min). The effects of OFA on PONV did not differ in the prespecified subgroups of sex, smoking status, and PONV risk scores.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of PONV prophylaxis and multimodal analgesia, SPI-guided opioid-free anaesthesia halved the incidence of PONV after thoracoscopic lung resection, although it was associated with a longer stay in the PACU.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200059710).

Variation in Intraoperative Opioid Administration by Patient, Clinician, and Hospital Contribution

Importance

The opioid crisis has led to scrutiny of opioid exposures before and after surgical procedures. However, the extent of intraoperative opioid variation and the sources and contributing factors associated with it are unclear.

Objective

To analyze attributable variance of intraoperative opioid administration for patient-, clinician-, and hospital-level factors across surgical and analgesic categories.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study was conducted using electronic health record data collected from a national quality collaborative database. The cohort consisted of 1 011 268 surgical procedures at 46 hospitals across the US involving 2911 anesthesiologists, 2291 surgeons, and 8 surgical and 4 analgesic categories. Patients without ambulatory opioid prescriptions or use history undergoing an elective surgical procedure between January 1, 2014, and September 11, 2020, were included. Data were analyzed from January 2022 to July 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The rate of intraoperative opioid administration as a continuous measure of oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) normalized to patient weight and case duration was assessed. Attributable variance was estimated in a hierarchical structure using patient, clinician, and hospital levels and adjusted intraclass correlations (ICCs).

Results

Among 1 011 268 surgical procedures (mean [SD] age of patients, 55.9 [16.2] years; 604 057 surgical procedures among females [59.7%]), the mean (SD) rate of intraoperative opioid administration was 0.3 [0.2] OME/kg/h. Together, clinician and hospital levels contributed to 20% or more of variability in intraoperative opioid administration across all analgesic and surgical categories (adjusting for surgical or analgesic category, ICCs ranged from 0.57-0.79 for the patient, 0.04-0.22 for the anesthesiologist, and 0.09-0.26 for the hospital, with the lowest ICC combination 0.21 for anesthesiologist and hosptial [0.12 for the anesthesiologist and 0.09 for the hospital for opioid only]). Comparing the 95th and fifth percentiles of opioid administration, variation was 3.3-fold among anesthesiologists (surgical category range, 2.7-fold to 7.7-fold), 4.3-fold among surgeons (surgical category range, 3.4-fold to 8.0-fold), and 2.2-fold among hospitals (surgical category range, 2.2-fold to 4.3-fold). When adjusted for patient and surgical characteristics, mean (square error mean) administration was highest for cardiac surgical procedures (0.54 [0.56-0.52 OME/kg/h]) and lowest for orthopedic knee surgical procedures (0.19 [0.17-0.21 OME/kg/h]). Peripheral and neuraxial analgesic techniques were associated with reduced administration in orthopedic hip (51.6% [95% CI, 51.4%-51.8%] and 60.7% [95% CI, 60.5%-60.9%] reductions, respectively) and knee (48.3% [95% CI, 48.0%-48.5%] and 60.9% [95% CI, 60.7%-61.1%] reductions, respectively) surgical procedures, but reduction was less substantial in other surgical categories (mean [SD] reduction, 13.3% [8.8%] for peripheral and 17.6% [9.9%] for neuraxial techniques).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, clinician-, hospital-, and patient-level factors had important contributions to substantial variation of opioid administrations during surgical procedures. These findings suggest the need for a broadened focus across multiple factors when developing and implementing opioid-reducing strategies in collaborative quality-improvement programs.

The nuts and bolts of multimodal anaesthesia in the 21st century: a primer for clinicians

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review article explores the application of multimodal anaesthesia in general anaesthesia, particularly in conjunction with locoregional anaesthesia, specifically focusing on the importance of EEG monitoring. We provide an evidence-based guide for implementing multimodal anaesthesia, encompassing drug combinations, dosages, and EEG monitoring techniques, to ensure reliable intraoperative anaesthesia while minimizing adverse effects and improving patient outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Opioid-free and multimodal general anaesthesia have significantly reduced opioid addiction and chronic postoperative pain. However, the evidence supporting the effectiveness of these approaches is limited. This review attempts to integrate research from broader neuroscientific fields to generate new clinical hypotheses. It discusses the correlation between high-dose intraoperative opioids and increased postoperative opioid consumption and their impact on pain indices and readmission rates. Additionally, it explores the relationship between multimodal anaesthesia and pain processing models and investigates the potential effects of nonpharmacological interventions on preoperative anxiety and postoperative pain.

SUMMARY

The integration of EEG monitoring is crucial for guiding adequate multimodal anaesthesia and preventing excessive anaesthesia dosing. Furthermore, the review investigates the impact of combining regional and opioid-sparing general anaesthesia on perioperative EEG readings and anaesthetic depth. The findings have significant implications for clinical practice in optimizing multimodal anaesthesia techniques (Supplementary Digital Content 1: Video Abstract, http://links.lww.com/COAN/A96 ).

Perioperative Hypotension in Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Upper Extremity Surgery with Dexmedetomidine Sedation: A Retrospective Study

(1) Background: limited data exist regarding the occurrence of hypotension associated with dexmedetomidine use and its risk factors in the context of intraoperative sedation for patients receiving peripheral nerve blocks. (2) Method: This single-center retrospective study assessed the incidence of hypotension in patients undergoing orthopedic upper extremity surgery with brachial plexus blockade. Patients were classified into three groups: group N (non-sedated), group M (midazolam), and group D (dexmedetomidine), based on their primary intraoperative sedative use. The primary outcome was the incidence of perioperative hypotension, defined as systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 90 mmHg or mean blood pressure (MBP) < 60 mmHg, at a minimum of two recorded time points during the intraoperative period and post-anesthesia care unit stay. Multivariable logistic models for the occurrence of hypotension were constructed for the entire cohort and group D. (3) Results: A total of 2152 cases (group N = 445, group M = 678, group D = 1029) were included in the analysis. The odds ratio for the occurrence of hypotension in group D was 5.68 (95% CI, 2.86 to 11.28) compared with group N. Concurrent use of a beta blocker, longer duration of surgery, and lower preoperative SBP and higher preoperative heart rate were identified as significant risk factors. (4) Conclusions: the increased risk of hypotension and the associated factors should be taken into account before using dexmedetomidine in these cases.

Impact of Opioid-Free Anesthesia on Postoperative Quality of Recovery in Patients After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy-A Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Opioid analgesics may delay discharge and affect postoperative quality of recovery because of their significant adverse effects, such as hyperalgesia, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), shivering and urine retention. We aimed to compare the quality of postoperative recovery (QoR) between patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgeries with opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) and those with opioid-based anesthesia (OA).

Patients and Methods

80 adult patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly allocated to an opioid-free anesthesia group (Group OFA) or an opioid-based anesthesia group (Group OA). The primary outcome was the quality of postoperative recovery using QoR-15 scale on postoperative day 1 (POD 1) and 2 (POD 2). The secondary outcomes included the incidence of opioid-related adverse symptoms, perioperative hemodynamic data, duration of post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay and duration of extubation, and the incidences of hypotension and bradycardia.

Results

A statistically significant difference in total QoR-15 was observed between the two groups on POD 1 and POD 2 (91.00 (90.00, 92.00) vs 113.00 (108.25, 115.00), 106.00 (104.00, 112.00) vs 133.00 (130.00, 135.00), P < 0.001). The incidence of opioid-related symptoms was significantly different between the two groups on POD 1 (P < 0.05). There were between-group differences in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at T3 (P < 0.001). There was also a significant difference in the incidence of hypotension between the two groups (P = 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in the duration of PACU stay, duration of extubation and the incidence of bradycardia (P > 0.05). There was no difference in heart rate between the two groups at all observed time points, either (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

We concluded that the quality of recovery of patients receiving OFA was superior to those receiving OA after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Comparison of oxygen reserve index according to the remimazolam or dexmedetomidine for intraoperative sedation under regional anesthesia-A single-blind randomized controlled trial

Introduction

We aimed to evaluate the difference in intraoperative oxygen reserve index (ORi) between the sedatives remimazolam (RMMZ) and dexmedetomidine (DEX).

Methods

Seventy-eight adult patients scheduled for sedation under regional anesthesia were randomly assigned to either the DEX (n = 39) or RMMZ (n = 39) group. The primary outcome was the difference in perioperative ORi between the groups. The secondary outcomes included respiratory depression, hypo- or hypertension, heart rate (HR), blood pressure, respiratory rate and postoperative outcomes. Additionally, the number of patients who experienced a decrease in intraoperative ORi to < 50% and the associated factors were analyzed.

Results

The ORi was significantly higher in the RMMZ group at 15 min after sedation maintenance. There were no significant differences in respiratory depression between the two groups. The intraoperative HR was significantly higher in the RMMZ group after the induction of sedation, 15 min after sedation maintenance, and at the end of surgery. No other results were significantly different between the two groups. The incidence of a decrease in intraoperative ORi to < 50% was significantly higher in the DEX group. Factors associated with a decrease in the intraoperative ORi to < 50% were diabetes mellitus, low baseline peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), and DEX use. In the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for a decrease in the intraoperative ORi to < 50%, the cutoff baseline SpO2 was 97%.

Conclusion

RMMZ is recommended as a sedative for patients with a low baseline SpO2 and intraoperative bradycardia. Further studies should be conducted to establish the criteria for a significant ORi reduction.

Opioid-free anesthesia reduces the severity of acute postoperative motion-induced pain and patient-controlled epidural analgesia-related adverse events in lung surgery: randomized clinical trial

Background

Opioids have been used as pain relievers for thousands of years. However, they may also cause undesirable side effects. We therefore performed this study to compare the effect of opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) versus opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA) on postoperative pain and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA)-related events.

Methods

This is a single center randomized clinical trial that was recruited patients aged from 18 to 70 years who received video-assisted lung surgery between October 2021 and February 2022. Participants were 1:1 randomly assigned to OFA or OSA. Patients in the OFA group received propofol, rocuronium, esmolol, lidocaine, and magnesium sulfate intravenously with epidural ropivacaine. Patients in the OSA group received propofol, rocuronium, remifentanil, and sufentanil intravenously with epidural hydromorphone and ropivacaine.

Results

A total number of 124 patients were randomly allocated to the OFA or OSA group. In the OFA group, the severity of pain during coughs on the first postoperative days (PODs; VAS score 1.88 ± 0.88 vs. 2.16 ± 1.1, p = 0.044) was significantly lower than that in the OSA group. The total ratio of PCEA-related adverse events in the OFA group [11 (19.6%) vs. 26 (47.3%), p = 0.003] was significantly lower than in the OSA group.

Conclusion

OFA in patients who received video-assisted lung surgery led to lower severity of acute postoperative motion-induced pain and fewer PCEA-related adverse events on the first POD than in the patients in the OSA group.

Clinical trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov, identifier (NCT05063396).

Pain management after thoracic surgery or chest trauma

Accidental or surgically induced thoracic trauma is responsible for significant pain that can impact patient outcomes. One of the main objectives of its pain management is to promote effective coughing and early mobilization to reduce atelectasis and ventilation disorders induced by pulmonary contusion. The incidence of chronic pain can affect more than 35% of patients after both thoracotomy and thoracoscopy as well as after chest trauma. As the severity of acute pain is associated with the incidence of chronic pain, early and effective pain management is very important. In this narrative review, we propose to detail systemic and regional analgesia techniques to minimize postoperative pain, while reducing transitional pain, surgical stress response and opioid side effects. We provide the reader with practical recommendations based on both literature and clinical practice experience in a referral level III thoracic trauma center.

Opioid-free anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate all available evidence thus far on opioid based versus opioid-free anesthesia and its effect on acute and chronic postoperative pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

SETTING

Operating room, postoperative recovery room and ward.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing general anesthesia.

INTERVENTIONS

After consulting MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane database, studies which compared opioid free anesthesia (OFA) with opioid based anesthesia (OBA) were included (last search April 15th 2022).

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcomes were acute and chronic pain scores in NRS or VAS. Secondary outcomes were quality of recovery and postoperative opioid consumption. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 tool and a random effects model for the meta-analysis was conducted.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 1245 citations, of which 38 studies met our inclusion criteria. There is moderate quality evidence showing no clinically relevant difference of Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores or opioid consumption in the postoperative period (pooled mean difference of 0.39 points with a CI of 0.19-0.59 and 4.02 MME with a CI of 1.73-6.30). We found only one small-sized study reporting no effect of opioid-free anesthesia on chronic pain. The quality of recovery was superior in patients with opioid-free anesthesia (mean difference of 8.26 points), however, this pooled analysis was comprised of only two studies. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occurred less in opioid-free anesthesia, but bradycardia was more frequent.

CONCLUSIONS

We concluded that we cannot recommend one strategy over the other. Future studies could focus on quality of recovery as outcome measure and adequately powered studies on the effects of opioid-free anesthesia on chronic pain are eagerly awaited.

Comparison of distal radius fracture plating surgery under wide-awake local anesthesia no tourniquet technique and balanced anesthesia: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Distal radius fractures (DRF) are frequently treated with internal fixation under general anesthesia or a brachial plexus block. Recently, the wide-awake local anesthesia with no tourniquet (WALANT) technique has been suggested as a method that results in higher patient satisfaction. This study aimed to evaluate the functional outcomes, complications, and patient-reported outcomes of DRF plating surgery under both the WALANT and balanced anesthesia (BA).

METHODS

Ninety-three patients with DRFs who underwent open reduction and plating were included. Regarding the anesthetic technique, 38 patients received WALANT, while 55 received BA, comprised of multimodal pain control brachial plexus anesthesia with light general support. The patient's overall satisfaction in both groups and the intraoperative numerical rating scale of pain and anxiety (0-10) in the WALANT group were recorded. The peri-operative radiographic parameters were measured; the clinical outcomes, including Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) score, wrist mobility, and grip strength, were recorded in up to 1-year follow-up. Results presented with a mean difference and 95% confidence intervals and mean ± standard deviation.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients in the WALANT group was higher than in the BA group (63 ± 17 vs. 54 ± 17, P = 0.005), and there were fewer intra-articular DRF fractures in the WALANT group than in the BA group (AO type A/B/C: 30/3/5 vs. 26/10/19, P = 0.009). The reduction and plating quality were similar in both groups. The clinical outcomes at follow-up were comparable between the two groups, except the WALANT group had worse postoperative 3-month pronation (88% vs. 96%; - 8.0% [ - 15.7 to - 0.2%]) and 6-month pronation (92% vs. 100%; - 9.1% [ - 17.0 to - 1.2%]), and better postoperative 1-year flexion (94% vs. 82%; 12.0% [2.0-22.1%]). The overall satisfaction was comparable in the WALANT and BA groups (8.7 vs. 8.5; 0.2 [ - 0.8 to 1.2]). Patients in the WALANT group reported an injection pain scale of 1.7 ± 2.0, an intraoperative pain scale of 1.2 ± 1.9, and an intraoperative anxiety scale of 2.3 ± 2.8.

CONCLUSION

The reduction quality, functional outcomes, and overall satisfaction were comparable between the WALANT and BA groups. With meticulous preoperative planning, the WALANT technique could be an alternative for DRF plating surgery in selected patients. Trial registration This retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital (KMUHIRB-E(I)-20210201).

Comparison of different ratios of propofol-ketamine admixture in rapid-sequence induction of anesthesia for emergency laparotomy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the hemodynamic effect of two ratios of propofol and ketamine (ketofol), namely 1:1 and 1:3 ratios, in rapid-sequence induction of anesthesia for emergency laparotomy.

METHODS

This randomized controlled study included adult patients undergoing emergency laparotomy under general anesthesia. The patients were randomized to receive either ketofol ratio of 1:1 (n = 37) or ketofol ratio of 1:3 (n = 37). Hypotension (mean arterial pressure < 70 mmHg) was managed by 5-mcg norepinephrine. The primary outcome was total norepinephrine requirements during the postinduction period. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of postinduction hypotension, and the intubation condition (excellent, good, or poor).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients in the ketofol-1:1 and 35 patients in the ketofol 1:3 group were analyzed. The total norepinephrine requirement was less in the ketofol-1:1 group than in the ketofol-1:3 group, P-values: 0.043. The incidence of postinduction hypotension was less in the ketofol-1:1 group (4 [12%]) than in ketofol-1:3 group (12 [35%]), P-value 0.022. All the included patients had excellent intubation condition.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing emergency laparotomy, the use of ketofol in 1:1 ratio for rapid-sequence induction of anesthesia was associated with less incidence of postinduction hypotension and vasopressor consumption in comparison to the 1:3 ratio with comparable intubation conditions.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05166330. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05166330 .

Effect of opioid-free anesthesia on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

BACKGROUND

Research on opioid-free anesthesia has increased in recent years; however, it has never been determined whether it is more beneficial than opioid anesthesia. This meta-analysis was primarily used to assess the effect of opioid-free anesthesia compared with opioid anesthesia on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

We searched the electronic databases of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Embase from 2014 to 2022 to identify relevant articles and extract relevant data. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, time to extubation, pain score at 24 hours postoperatively, and time to first postoperative rescue analgesia were compared between patients receiving opioid-free anesthesia and those receiving standard opioid anesthesia. Differences in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were evaluated using risk ratios (95% confidence interval [CI]). The significance of the differences was assessed using mean differences and 95% CI. The heterogeneity of the subject trials was evaluated using the I2 test. Statistical analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.4 software.

RESULTS

Fourteen randomized controlled trials, including 1354 participants, were evaluated in the meta-analysis. As seen in the forest plot, the OFA group had a lower risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting than the control group (risk ratios = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.33-0.51, P < .00001; n = 1354), and the meta-analysis also found that the OFA group had lower postoperative analgesia scores at 24 hours (P < .000001), but time to extubation (P = .14) and first postoperative resuscitation analgesia time (P < .54) were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid-free anesthesia reduces the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting while providing adequate analgesia without interfering with postoperative awakening.

Opioid Free Total Intravenous Anesthesia With Dexmedetomidine-Esketamine-Lidocaine for Patients Undergoing Lumpectomy

Background

The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of the opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) technique with dexmedetomidine, esketamine, and lidocaine among patients diagnosed with benign breast mass and scheduled for lumpectomy.

Methods

We enrolled 80 female patients who were aged from 18 to 60 years, graded with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, diagnosed with benign breast mass, and scheduled for lumpectomy. These patients were randomly treated with OFA or opioid-based anesthesia (OBA). Dexmedetomidine-esketamine-lidocaine and sufentanil-remifentanil were administered in OFA and OBA group, respectively. We mainly compared the analgesic efficacy of OFA and OBA technique, as well as intraoperative hemodynamics, the quality of recovery, and satisfaction score of patients.

Results

There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to visual analogue scale (VAS) score at 2, 12, and 24 h after extubation. However, the time to first rescue analgesic was prolonged in OFA group than that in OFB group (6.18 ± 1.00 min vs. 7.40 ± 0.92 min, P = 0.000). Further, mean arterial pressure and heart rate at T0 (entering operating room), T1 (before anesthesia induction), T2 (immediately after intubation), T3, T4, and T5 (1, 5, and 10 min after surgical incision, respectively) were significantly higher in OFA group than that in OBA group. Incidence of hypotension and bradycardia was lower in OFA group. Consistently, fewer patients in OFA group consumed atropine (8% vs. 32%, P = 0.019) and ephedrine (5% vs. 38%, P = 0.001) compared to OBA group. Furthermore, patients in OFA group had a longer awakening time (7.14 ± 2.63 min vs. 4.54 ± 1.14 min, P = 0.000) and recovery time of orientation (11.76 ± 3.15 min vs. 6.92 ± 1.19 min, P = 0.000). Fewer patients in the OFA group experienced postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (11% vs. 51%, P = 0.000) and consumed ondansetron (5% vs. 35%, P = 0.003) compared to OBA group. And patients in OFA group had a higher satisfaction score than those in OBA group (9 (8 - 9) vs. 7 (7 - 8), P = 0.000).

Conclusion

For patients undergoing lumpectomy, OFA technique with dexmedetomidine-esketamine-lidocaine showed a better postoperative analgesic efficacy, a more stable hemodynamics, and a lower incidence of PONV. However, such advantage of OFA technique should be weighed against a longer awakening time and recovery time of orientation in clinical practice.

Effect of S-ketamine on the intraoperative Surgical Pleth Index in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a single-center randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether S-ketamine affects the Surgical Pleth Index (SPI) during video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.

METHODS

Eighty-four patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic lung lobectomy were enrolled. They were randomly assigned to an S-ketamine group (group S) and an equivalent normal saline group (group N). SPI values were recorded; and pain score on a numerical rating scale (NRS), the consumption of opioids, rescue analgesia, and post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were evaluated.

RESULTS

The SPI and heart rate of the S-ketamine group were significantly lower 30 minutes after the start of surgery and at the end. The NRS score was lower in the S-ketamine group 6 and 12 hours postoperatively, but there were no differences in mean blood pressure or the NRS score 24 and 48 hours postoperatively. Rescue analgesia was required less frequently by the S-ketamine group, but the incidence of PONV did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

S-ketamine was associated with lower intraoperative SPI 30 minutes after the start and at the end of surgery. It also reduced opioid use intraoperatively and the NRS scores 6 and 12 hours postoperatively.Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2000040012), 18/11/2020.

Opioid-free anesthesia versus opioid-based anesthesia in patients undergoing cardiovascular and thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Despite their extensive clinical use, opioids are characterized by several side effects. These complications, coupled with the ongoing opioid epidemic, have favored the rise of opioid-free-anesthesia (OFA). Herein, we perform the first pairwise meta-analysis of clinical outcomes for OFA vs opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) in patients undergoing cardiovascular and thoracic surgery.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched medical databases to identify studies comparing OFA and OBA in patients undergoing cardiovascular or thoracic surgery. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) or standard mean differences (SMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Our pooled analysis included 919 patients (8 studies), of whom 488 underwent surgery with OBA and 431 with OFA. Among cardiovascular surgery patients, compared to OBA, OFA was associated with significantly reduced post-operative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.57; P = .042), inotrope need (RR .84, P = .045), and non-invasive ventilation (RR, .54; P = .028). However, no differences were observed for 24hr pain score (SMD, -.35; P = .510) or 48hr morphine equivalent consumption (SMD, -1.09; P = .139). Among thoracic surgery patients, there was no difference between OFA and OBA for any of the explored outcomes, including post-operative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.41; P = .025).

CONCLUSION

Through the first pooled analysis of OBA vs OFA in a cardiothoracic-exclusive cohort, we found no significant difference in any of the pooled outcomes for thoracic surgery patients. Although limited to 2 cardiovascular surgery studies, OFA was associated with significantly reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting, inotrope need, and non-invasive ventilation in these patients. With growing use of OFA in invasive operations, further studies are needed to assess their efficacy and safety in cardiothoracic patients.

Enhanced recovery protocols for ambulatory surgery

INTRODUCTION

In the United States, ambulatory surgeries account for up to 87% of all surgical procedures. (1) It was estimated that 19.2 million ambulatory surgeries were performed in 2018 (https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb287-Ambulatory-Surgery-Overview-2019.pdf). Cataract procedures and musculoskeletal surgeries are the most common surgical interventions performed in ambulatory centers. However, more complex surgical interventions, such as sleeve gastrectomies, oncological, and spine surgeries, and even arthroplasties are routinely performed as day cases or in a model of an ambulatory extended recovery. (2-5) The ambulatory surgery centers industry has grown since 2017 by 1.1% per year and reached a market size of $31.2 billion. According to the Ambulatory Surgery Center Association, there is a potential to save $57.6 billion in Medicare costs over the next decade (https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/market-size/ambulatory-surgery-centers-united-states/). These data suggest an expected rise in the volume of ambulatory (same day) or extended ambulatory (23 h) surgeries in coming years. Similar increases are also observed in other countries. For example, 75% of elective surgeries are performed as same-day surgery in the United Kingdom. (6) To reduce costs and improve the quality of care after those more complex procedures, ambulatory surgery centers have started implementing patient-centered, high-quality, value-based practices. To achieve those goals, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have been implemented to reduce the length of stay, decrease costs, increase patients' satisfaction, and transform clinical practices. The ERAS fundamentals for ambulatory surgery are based on five pillars, including (1) preoperative patient counseling, education, and optimization; (2) multimodal and opioid-sparing analgesia; (3) nausea and vomiting, wound infection, and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis; (4) maintenance of euvolemia; and (5) encouragement of early mobility. Those pillars rely on interdisciplinary teamwork led by anesthesiologists, surgery-specific workgroups, and safety culture. (2) Research shows that a team of ambulatory anesthesiologists is crucial in improving postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain control. (7) This review will summarize the current evidence on the elements and clinical importance of implementing ERAS protocol for ambulatory surgery.

Effect of Dexmedetomidine and Two Different Doses of Esketamine Combined Infusion on the Quality of Recovery in Patients Undergoing Modified Radical Mastectomy for Breast Cancer - A Randomised Controlled Study

Purpose

This study evaluated the effect of a combined infusion of dexmedetomidine and esketamine on the quality of recovery in patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy.

Methods

A total of 135 patients were randomly divided into three groups: dexmedetomidine group (group D) received dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg loading, 0.4 µg/kg/h infusion), dexmedetomidine plus low-dose esketamine group (group DE1) received dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg loading, 0.4 µg/kg/h infusion) and esketamine (0.5 mg/kg loading, 2 µg/kg/min infusion), dexmedetomidine plus high-dose esketamine group (group DE2) received dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg loading, 0.4 µg/kg/h infusion) and esketamine (0.5 mg/kg loading, 4 µg/kg/min infusion). The primary outcome was the overall quality of recovery-15 (QoR-15) scores at 1 day after surgery. The secondary endpoints were total QoR-15 scores at 3 days after surgery, propofol and remifentanil requirement, awaking and extubation time, postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores, rescue analgesic, nausea and vomiting, bradycardia, excessive sedation, nightmares, and agitation.

Results

The overall QoR-15 scores were much higher in groups DE1 and DE2 than in groups D 1 and D 3 days after surgery (P < 0.05). VAS pain scores at 6, 12, 24 h postoperatively, propofol and remifentanil requirements were significantly lower in groups DE1 and DE2 than in group D (P < 0.05). Compared with group D, awaking time, extubation time, and post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay were significantly prolonged in groups DE1 and DE2 (P < 0.05) and were much longer in group DE2 than in group DE1 (P < 0.05). The proportion of postoperative rescue analgesics and bradycardia was higher and the incidence of excessive sedation was lower in group D than in groups DE1 and DE2 (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine plus esketamine partly improved postoperative recovery quality and decreased the incidence of bradycardia but prolonged awaking time, extubation time, and PACU stay, especially dexmedetomidine plus 4 µg/kg/min esketamine.

Comparison between multimodal and intraoperative opioid free anesthesia for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a prospective, randomized study

Anesthesia for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and perioperative management remains a challenge. Several clinical studies indicate that opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) may be beneficial, but there is no consensus on the most optimal anesthesia technique in clinical practice. The aim of our study was to assess the potential benefits and risks of intraoperative OFA compared to multimodal analgesia (MMA) with remifentanil infusion. In a prospective, randomized study, we analyzed 59 patients' data. Primary outcome measures were oxycodone consumption and reported pain scores (numerical rating scale, NRS) at 1, 6, 12, and 24th hours after surgery. Postoperative sedation on the Ramsay scale, nausea and vomiting on the PONV impact scale, desaturation episodes, pruritus, hemodynamic parameters, and hospital stay duration were also documented and compared. There were no significant differences in NRS scores or total 24-h oxycodone requirements. In the first postoperative hour, OFA group patients needed an average of 4.6 mg of oxycodone while the MMA group 7.72 mg (p = 0.008, p < 0.05 statistically significant). The PONV impact scale was significantly lower in the OFA group only in the first hour after the operation (p = 0.006). Patients in the OFA group required higher doses of ephedrine 23.67 versus 15.69 mg (p = 0.039) and more intravenous fluids 1160 versus 925.86 ml (p = 0.007). The mode of anesthesia did not affect the pain scores or the total dose of oxycodone in the first 24 postoperative hours. Only in the first postoperative hour were an opioid-sparing effect and reduction of PONV incidence seen in the OFA group when compared with remifentanil-based anesthesia. However, patients in the OFA group showed significantly greater hemodynamic lability necessitating higher vasopressor doses and more fluid volume.