The effects of propofol vs. sevoflurane on post-operative pain and need of opioid

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Trial registration

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

Supplementary Information

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

Comparison of Sevoflurane and Propofol on the Incidence of Postoperative Pain and Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty With Chronic Pain Before Surgery

BACKGROUND

Propofol and sevoflurane as frequently used general anesthetics can affect postoperative pain. Our study explored whether the incidence of postoperative pain differed among patients with chronic pain undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) anesthetized with sevoflurane or propofol.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to groups receiving either sevoflurane (Group S, n = 50) or propofol (Group P, n = 47) for anesthesia maintenance during TKA. The incidences of postoperative pain and quality of life (QoL) were measured using the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) scale at 1, 3, and 7 days post-operation (DPO), and 1 and 3 months post-operation (MPO).

RESULTS

At 3 DPO, fewer patients reported moderate pain (P = 0.001) and more patients reported no pain (P = 0.003) in Group S than that in Group P. At 3 MPO, more patients reported no pain (P = 0.04) and fewer patients reported moderate pain (P = 0.04) in Group S than in Group P. No significant differences were found in the incidence of postoperative pain between the 2 groups of patients at the other time points. The EQ-5D scores were higher in Group S than in Group P (P = 0.022), and the difference was 0.15 at most, which was not optimal. The EQ-5D clinical results might be not very significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Sevoflurane anesthesia may have potential advantages in reducing postoperative pain in patients undergoing TKA with a preoperative VAS score > 4.

Analgesic efficacy and pharmacokinetics of epidural oxycodone in pain management after gynaecological laparoscopy-A randomised, double blind, active control, double-dummy clinical comparison with intravenous administration

AIMS

Early pain after laparoscopy is often severe. Oxycodone is a feasible analgesic option after laparoscopy, but there are sparse data on epidural administration. The aim was to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and pharmacokinetics of a single dose of epidural oxycodone as a part of multimodal analgesia after gynaecological laparoscopy.

METHODS

Women (n = 60), aged 23-71 years, undergoing elective gynaecological laparoscopy, were administrated either epidural oxycodone 0.1 mg kg^-1 and intravenous (i.v.) saline (EPI-group n = 31), or epidural saline and i.v. oxycodone 0.1 mg kg^-1 (IV-group = 29) in a randomised, double blind, active control, double dummy clinical trial. A pharmacokinetic model was developed using population modelling of plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations obtained in these patients and data of 2 published studies. The primary outcome was the amount of i.v. fentanyl for rescue analgesia during the first 4 hours.

RESULTS

Twenty of the 31 patients in the EPI-group and 26 of the 29 patients in the IV-group needed i.v. fentanyl for rescue analgesia, P = .021. The median (interquartile range) number of fentanyl doses were 1.0 (1.0-3.0) in the EPI-group and 2.5 (1.0-4.0) doses in the IV-group, P = .008. Plasma concentrations were similar, but CSF concentrations were 100-fold higher in the EPI-group. The population model indicated that 60% of oxycodone injected into the epidural space enters into CSF and 40% is absorbed into the systemic circulation.

CONCLUSIONS

The data support superiority of epidural administration of oxycodone compared to i.v. administration during the first hours after laparoscopic surgery. This is likely to be based on enhanced permeation into the central nervous system after epidural administration.

Effects of intraoperative propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia on postoperative pain in spine surgery: Comparison with desflurane anesthesia - a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

As reported, patients experience less postoperative pain after propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). In the present study, we investigated the postoperative analgesic effects between propofol-based TIVA and desflurane anesthesia after spine surgery.

METHODS

Sixty patients were included who received (surgical time >180 minutes) lumbar spine surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either TIVA (with target-controlled infusion) with propofol/fentanyl-based anesthesia (TIVA group) or desflurane/fentanyl-based anesthesia (DES group), titrated to maintain Bispectral Index values between 45 and 55. All patients received patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with fentanyl for postoperative pain relief. Numeric pain rating scale (NRS) pain scores, postoperative fentanyl consumption, postoperative rescue tramadol use, and fentanyl-related side effects were recorded.

RESULTS

The TIVA group patients reported lower NRS pain scores during coughing on postoperative day 1 but not day 2 and 3 (P = .002, P = .133, P = .161, respectively). Less fentanyl consumption was observed on postoperative days 1 and 2, but not on day 3 (375 μg vs 485 μg, P = .032, 414 μg vs 572 μg, P = .033, and 421 μg vs 479 μg, P = .209, respectively), less cumulative fentanyl consumption at postoperative 48 hours (790 μg vs 1057 μg, P = .004) and 72 hours (1210 μg vs 1536 μg, P = .004), and total fentanyl consumption (1393 μg vs 1704 μg, P = .007) when compared with the DES group. No difference was found in rescue tramadol use and fentanyl-related side effects.

CONCLUSION

Patients anesthetized with propofol-based TIVA reported less pain during coughing and consumed less daily and total PCA fentanyl after lumbar spine surgery.

Pain management after laparoscopic hysterectomy: systematic review of literature and PROSPECT recommendations

Background and objectives

Laparoscopic hysterectomy is increasingly performed because it is associated with less postoperative pain and earlier recovery as compared with open abdominal hysterectomy. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature regarding the management of pain after laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Strategy and selection criteria

Randomized controlled trials evaluating postoperative pain after laparoscopic hysterectomy published between January 1996 and May 2018 were retrieved, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, from the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Efficacy and adverse effects of analgesic techniques were assessed.

Results

Of the 281 studies initially identified, 56 were included. Of these, 31 assessed analgesic or anesthetic interventions and 25 assessed surgical interventions. Acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and dexamethasone reduced opioid consumption. Limited evidence hindered recommendations on alpha-2-agonists. Inconsistent evidence was found in the studies investigating pregabalin and transversus abdominis plane block, and no evidence was found for intraperitoneal local anesthetics, port site infiltration, or single-port laparoscopy. Measures to lower peritoneal insufflation pressure or humidify or heat insufflated gas seem to reduce the incidence of shoulder pain, but not abdominal pain.

Conclusions

The baseline analgesic regimen for laparoscopic hysterectomy should include acetaminophen, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, dexamethasone, and opioids as rescue analgesics.

Propofol attenuates postoperative hyperalgesia via regulating spinal GluN2B-p38MAPK/EPAC1 pathway in an animal model of postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

Total intravenous anesthesia with propofol has been shown to reduce postoperative pain in some clinical studies, but knowledge of its underlying analgesic mechanism remains limited. In this study, we compared the analgesic effects of propofol versus isoflurane in an animal model of postoperative pain and evaluated its underlying molecular mechanisms.

METHODS

Plantar incision was made in the hind paws of rats under general anesthesia with 2.5% of inhalational isoflurane (isoflurane group) or intravenous infusion of propofol (1.5 mg kg^-1  min^-1 , propofol group). Mechanical allodynia was assessed by paw withdrawal threshold before and after incision. Spinal dorsal horns (L3-L5) were harvested 1 hr after incision to assess the level of phosphorylated GluN2B, p38MAPK, ERK, JNK, and EPAC using Western blot and immunofluorescence.

RESULTS

Mechanical allodynia induced by plantar incision peaked at 1 hr and lasted for 3 days after incision. It was significantly less in the propofol group compared with the isoflurane group in the first 2 hr following incision. The incision-induced increases in phosphorylated GluN2B, p38MAPK, and EPAC1 were significantly reduced in the propofol group. The number of spinal dorsal neurons co-expressed with EPAC1 and c-Fos after the incision was significantly lower in the propofol group.

CONCLUSION

Propofol reduced pain responses in an animal model of postoperative pain and suppressed the spinal GluN2B-p38MAPK/EPAC1 signaling pathway. Since the p38MAPK/EPAC pathway plays a critical role in the development of postoperative hyperalgesia, our results provide evidence-based behavioral, molecular, and cellular mechanisms for the analgesic effects of propofol when used for general anesthesia.

SIGNIFICANCE

These findings may provide a new mechanism for the postsurgical analgesic effect of propofol, which is particularly interesting during the subacute period after surgery as it is the critical period for the development of persistent postsurgical pain.

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

BACKGROUND

Total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) with propofol may reduce pain after surgery compared with inhalational anaesthetic techniques. Whether propofol provides analgesic benefit may be influenced by the surgical procedure and anaesthetic/analgesic regime. Third molar surgery is a consistent and fairly standard surgical technique that provides a good model for postoperative pain. We investigated whether propofol TIVA or sevoflurane (SEVO) inhalational anaesthesia would produce better quality pain relief after third molar surgery.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for bilateral third molar surgery received propofol TIVA or SEVO inhalational anaesthesia. Postoperative numerical rating pain scores, analgesic consumption, adverse effects and global pain satisfaction were assessed.

RESULTS

Data from 48 patients in each group were analysed. The area under curves for numerical rating scale pain scores were significantly lower in the propofol TIVA group at rest and during mouth opening between 1 and 72 hr after surgery (p = 0.013 at rest, p = 0.021 with mouth opening). There was no difference in postoperative analgesic consumption. Propofol TIVA was associated with less postoperative headache (p = 0.041 in the postoperative anaesthetic care unit, p = 0.036 in ward). There were no differences in other adverse effects including postoperative nausea and vomiting. Global pain satisfaction and level of postoperative discomfort at 24 hr after surgery were significantly better in the propofol TIVA group (p = 0.008 and p = 0.009, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Propofol TIVA was associated with reduced postoperative pain after bilateral third molar surgery, but did not reduce postoperative analgesic consumption.

SIGNIFICANCE

Choice of general anaesthetic technique can affect postoperative analgesia. The results of this study suggest that propofol TIVA improves postoperative pain and patient satisfaction after third molar surgery compared to inhalational anaesthesia.

The analgesic effects of intraoperative total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol versus sevoflurane after colorectal surgery

Clinical studies have shown that total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol is associated with better postoperative pain control compared with inhalational anesthesia, while other studies have not shown any benefit. The analgesic effect of TIVA with propofol in colorectal surgery has not been studied. The aim of this study is to evaluate the postoperative analgesic effects of TIVA with propofol versus inhalational sevoflurane in colorectal surgery.This is a retrospective case-control study. Records of patients undergoing colorectal surgery from 2014 to 2016 (36 months) were retrieved. Ninety-five patients who received TIVA with propofol were matched against 95 patients who received inhalational sevoflurane. Acute postoperative numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores, postoperative morphine consumption, patient satisfaction, and side effects were compared and analyzed for differences between TIVA with propofol and sevoflurane.There were no significant differences in NRS pain scores, incidence of side effects, and patient satisfaction between the 2 groups. Patients receiving TIVA with propofol had significantly reduced total morphine consumption (P < .001), and daily morphine consumption on postoperative days 1 (P = .031), 2 (P = .002), and 3 (P = .031) compared with those receiving sevoflurane.TIVA with propofol was not associated with improved postoperative analgesia, better patient satisfaction, or reduced side effects. It may reduce postoperative opioid consumption after colorectal surgery.

Comparative randomized study of propofol target-controlled infusion versus sevoflurane anesthesia for third molar extraction

Background

The objective of this study was to compare hemodynamic and recovery characteristics of total intravenous anesthesia using propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) versus sevoflurane for extraction of four third molar teeth.

Methods

One hundred patients undergoing extraction of four third molar teeth under general anesthesia were randomized to one of two groups. Group 1 received propofol TCI-oxygen for induction and propofol TCI-oxygen-air for maintenance. Group II received a propofol bolus of 2 mg/kg for induction and sevoflurane-oxygen-air for maintenance. Heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), operating time, time to emergence, nausea and vomiting, and sedation and pain scores were measured in each group.

Results

Demographic data, including age, gender, weight, and height, were not significantly different between the two groups. The MAP was significantly higher after intubation (P = 0.007) and injection of anesthesia (P = 0.004) in the propofol group than in the sevoflurane group, with significant reflex bradycardia (P = 0.028). The mean time to emergence from anesthesia using propofol was 25 s shorter than that of sevoflurane (P = 0.02). Postoperatively, the propofol group was less sedated than the sevoflurane group at 30 min (0.02 versus 0.12), but this difference was not significant (P = 0.065).

Conclusion

Both propofol TCI and sevoflurane are good alternatives for induction and maintenance of anesthesia for short day-case surgery. However, propofol TCI does not blunt the hemodynamic response to sudden, severe stimuli as strongly as sevoflurane, and this limitation may be a cause for concern in patients with cardiac comorbidities.

Effects of propofol anesthesia versus sevoflurane anesthesia on postoperative pain after radical gastrectomy: a randomized controlled trial

Purpose

After a radical gastrectomy, patients may experience severe pain. Some studies have reported that the use of propofol significantly reduced postoperative pain, while others have argued that this effect was not significant. Thus, we aimed to assess whether anesthesia with propofol could help to reduce pain after an open radical gastrectomy procedure.

Patients and methods

Sixty patients who were scheduled to undergo a laparotomy for radical gastrectomy were randomly assigned to either the propofol or sevoflurane group (n=30 each). A target-controlled infusion of propofol or inhalation of sevoflurane, titrated to bispectral index of 40–60, was maintained. All patients were administered a standardized multimodal analgesic plan, including intraoperative dexmedetomidine, dexamethasone, and postoperative flurbiprofen axetil, as well as patient-controlled fentanyl. Hemodynamics, pain scores, fentanyl consumption, adverse events, and the incidence of chronic pain 1 month and 3 months following hospital discharge were recorded.

Results

The intensity of postoperative pain was relatively low to moderate in all the patients. The propofol group showed lower pain scores, at rest and while coughing, up to 48 h postoperatively compared to the sevoflurane group (P<0.05). Cumulative fentanyl consumption 0–24 h after surgery was lower for the propofol group (364.4 ± 139.1 vs. 529.3 ± 237.9 µg; P=0.002). However, for fentanyl consumption 0–48 h, the difference between the two groups was not significant (710.9 ± 312.8 vs. 850.9 ± 292.0 µg; P=0.078). There were no differences in the incidences of adverse events or chronic pain between the groups.

Conclusions

Overall, the multimodal analgesic approach reduced postoperative pain after an open radical gastrectomy procedure in all patients anesthetized with either propofol or sevoflurane. Furthermore, our results indicated better analgesic outcome for the propofol group, especially in the early postoperative period.

Pupillometry-guided Intraoperative Remifentanil Administration versus Standard Practice Influences Opioid Use

Background

Pupillometry has shown promising results for assessing nociception in anesthetized patients. However, its benefits in clinical practice are not demonstrated. The aim of this prospective randomized study was to evaluate the impact of intraoperative pupillometry monitoring on perioperative opioid consumption in major gynecologic surgery.

Methods

After receiving ethics committee approval and written consent of patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists status I to II women undergoing gynecologic surgery were included in this single-blinded, prospective, parallel-arm randomized study. General anesthesia was standardized with propofol–remifentanil target-controlled infusion. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups. In the pupillometry group, remifentanil administration was guided by pupillary diameter changes. In the standard group, remifentanil administration was left to the discretion of the anesthesiologist. The primary outcome was intraoperative remifentanil consumption.

Results

Fifty-five patients were analyzed. Remifentanil consumption was markedly decreased in the pupillometry group (3.8 [3.4 to 4.8 µg · kg–1 · h–1] vs. 7.9 µg · kg–1 · h–1 [6.5 to 9.0 µg · kg–1 · h–1] in the standard group; difference = 4.2 µg · kg–1 · h–1 [95% CI, 3.0 to 5.3 µg · kg–1 · h–1]; P &lt; 0.001). Cumulative 0- to 12-h morphine consumption was reduced in the pupillometry group (two-way repeated measures ANOVA 0.3 ± 0.1 vs. 0.4 ± 0.2 mg/kg; P = 0.048). A telephone survey 3 months after surgery revealed that 15 of 29 patients in the standard group still experienced procedure-related pain versus 3 of 23 in the pupillometry group (chi-square P = 0.037). No adverse events associated with pupillometry were observed during the study.

Conclusions

The use of pupillometry to guide intraoperative analgesia reduced intraoperative remifentanil consumption and postoperative morphine requirements. The possible consequences of decreasing intraoperative remifentanil in terms of chronic pain require further investigation.

Effect of intravenous anesthesia with propofol versus isoflurane inhalation anesthesia in postoperative pain of inguinal herniotomy: a randomized clinical trial

Postoperative pain is a common problem after inguinal herniotomy. We aimed to compare the intravenous anesthesia effects of propofol and isoflurane inhalation anesthesia on postoperative pain after inguinal herniotomy. In a randomized clinical trial, 102 eligible patients were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria and were randomly divided in two groups. In the first group, propofol was used for the maintenance of anesthesia, while isoflurane was used in the second group. The patient’s heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and oxygen saturation before, during and after surgery, recovery time and postoperative pain were measured immediately, 2, 4 and 6 hours after surgery and compared between two groups. T-test, and repeated measurement test were used for statistical analysis. No statistically significant differences were observed in heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation levels between the two groups (P > 0.05). Propofol has higher effect in easing postoperative pain of patients than isoflurane, but no difference in postoperative complications, including chills, nausea and vomiting, occurs in both two groups. Propofol is effective in declining the postoperative pain of patients after anesthesia in comparison with isoflurane. Moreover, due to the antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties of propofol, it is preferred to isoflurane and the authors recommended it to be used.

Does Propofol Anesthesia Lead to Less Postoperative Pain Compared With Inhalational Anesthesia?: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many studies have compared propofol-based anesthesia with inhalational anesthesia. Results from several studies have shown improved postoperative analgesia after propofol anesthesia, but other studies showed contradictory results. There are no large prospective studies that compare postoperative pain after propofol versus inhalational anesthesia. This meta-analysis was designed to focus on this question.

METHODS

A systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials that compared propofol-based anesthesia with volatile agents-based anesthesia in adults undergoing surgery was conducted. Published data were pooled for the meta-analysis with Review Manager (ie, RevMan). The main outcomes included postoperative pain intensity, opioid consumption, need for rescue analgesics, and time to first analgesia.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine clinical trials with a combined subject population of 4520 patients came within the purview of this meta-analysis. The investigated volatile agents included isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane. Compared with inhalational anesthetics, the propofol use was associated with a reduced postoperative pain intensity at rest at 30 minutes, 1 hour, and 12 hours (mean difference in pain scores, 30 minutes, -0.48 [visual analog scale, 0-10]; 99% confidence interval [CI], -1.07 to 0.12, P = 0.04) and reduced morphine-equivalent consumption 0 to 24 hours postoperatively (mean difference in morphine-equivalent consumption, -2.68 mg; 99% CI, -6.17 to 0.82; P = 0.05). Fewer patients required postoperative rescue analgesics during 0 to 24 hours after surgery under propofol anesthesia (risk ratio, 0.87; 99% CI, 0.74-1.03; P = 0.04). In addition, patients anesthetized with propofol required administration of postoperative analgesia later than those anesthetized with volatiles (mean difference in time to first analgesic administration, 6.12 minutes; 99% CI, 0.02-12.21; P = 0.01). Considering that Z statistic in RevMan 5.3 does not perform optimally in highly heterogeneous samples among groups or many combinations of groups with small sample sizes, a P value of <.01 was considered statistically significant. On the basis of this threshold, none of the aforementioned results are statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results are affected by substantial heterogeneity, which makes it difficult to predict significant differences in postoperative pain control between propofol anesthesia and inhalational anesthesia. Further large, randomized controlled trials are needed to corroborate these results and to detect differences (if any) between propofol and inhalational anesthesia on postoperative pain.

Total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhalational anaesthesia for adults undergoing transabdominal robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Rapid implementation of robotic transabdominal surgery has resulted in the need for re-evaluation of the most suitable form of anaesthesia. The overall objective of anaesthesia is to minimize perioperative risk and discomfort for patients both during and after surgery. Anaesthesia for patients undergoing robotic assisted surgery is different from anaesthesia for patients undergoing open or laparoscopic surgery; new anaesthetic concerns accompany robotic assisted surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess outcomes related to the choice of total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) or inhalational anaesthesia for adults undergoing transabdominal robotic assisted laparoscopic gynaecological, urological or gastroenterological surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016 Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to May 2016), Embase via OvidSP (1982 to May 2016), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) via EBSCOhost (1982 to May 2016) and the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1956 to May 2016). We also searched the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry and Clinical trials gov for ongoing trials (May 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults, aged 18 years and older, of both genders, treated with transabdominal robotic assisted laparoscopic gynaecological, urological or gastroenterological surgery and focusing on outcomes of TIVA or inhalational anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane. Study findings were not suitable for meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three single-centre, two-arm RCTs involving 170 participants. We found one ongoing trial. All included participants were male and were undergoing radical robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP). The men were between 50 and 75 years of age and met criteria for American Society of Anesthesiologists physical classification scores (ASA) I, ll and III.We found evidence showing no clinically meaningful differences in postoperative pain between the two types of anaesthetics (mean difference (MD) in visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at one to six hours was -2.20 (95% confidence interval (CI) -10.62 to 6.22; P = 0.61) in a sample of 62 participants from one study. Low-quality evidence suggests that propofol reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) over the short term (one to six hours after surgery) after RALRP compared with inhalational anaesthesia (sevoflurane, desflurane) (MD -1.70, 95% CI -2.59 to -0.81; P = 0.0002).We found low-quality evidence suggesting that propofol may prevent an increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) after pneumoperitoneum and steep Trendelenburg positioning compared with sevoflurane (MD -3.90, 95% CI -6.34 to -1.46; P = 0.002) with increased IOP from baseline to 30 minutes in steep Trendelenburg. However, it is unclear whether this surrogate outcome translates directly to clinical avoidance of ocular complications during surgery. No studies addressed the secondary outcomes of adverse effects, all-cause mortality, respiratory or circulatory complications, cognitive dysfunction, length of stay or costs. Overall the quality of evidence was low to very low, as all studies were small, single-centre trials providing unclear descriptions of methods.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear which anaesthetic technique is superior - TIVA or inhalational - for transabdominal robotic assisted surgery in urology, gynaecology and gastroenterology, as existing evidence is scarce, is of low quality and has been generated from exclusively male patients undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy.An ongoing trial, which includes participants of both genders with a focus on quality of recovery, might have an impact on future evidence related to this topic.

Sevoflurane affects evoked electromyography monitoring in cerebral palsy

Background

To explore the effect of sevoflurane inhalation anesthesia on evoked electromyography monitoring of spinal nerve root in children associated with cerebral palsy.

Methodology

Children with cerebral palsy (n=40) were selected and further divided into 1MAC (minimum alveolar concentration) sevoflurane group and 2MAC sevoflurane group. Following the induction of anesthesia, Nicolet Endeavor-CR16 channel electrophysiological monitor was used to implement three times of successive electrical stimulation with interval of 5 sec at 3.50 mA.

Results

Our results suggested a statistical significance of amplitude retention ratio and latency in the sevoflurane inhalation time (P<0.01), with an interaction effect between the sevoflurane inhalation time and concentration for amplitude retention ratio (P<0.01), while there is no interaction effect between the sevoflurane inhalation time and concentration for latency (P>0.05). Compared to 1MAC sevoflurane group, the amplitude retention ratio of 2MAC sevoflurane group decreased remarkably (P<0.01) and the latency of 2MAC sevoflurane group extended at T3 and T4 (P<0.05 or P<0.01).

Conclusions

In evoked electromyography monitoring of spinal nerve root in children with cerebral palsy, with the increasing of concentration and duration of sevoflurane inhalation, evoked electromyogram retention ratio reduces gradually, latency extends and the retention ratio has more changes than the latency.

Persistent posthysterectomy pain: A prospective, observational study

BACKGROUND

There is a large variation in the prevalence of persistent postsurgical pain depending on the type of surgery. It is unclear how common persistent postsurgical pain is after vaginal or laparoscopic hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to define the prevalence of persistent postsurgical pain 6 months after laparoscopic or vaginal hysterectomy for benign causes and to ascertain the intensity of the pain and its possible predictors.

DESING

A prospective, observational study.

SETTING

Pirkanmaa Hospital District between October 2008 and September 2013.

PATIENTS

Two hundred and forty-two women who underwent laparoscopic (150) or vaginal (92) hysterectomy for benign causes and who also participated in our earlier studies concerning acute pain.

INTERVENTIONS

A pain questionnaire and a prestamped return envelope were mailed to all women 6 months after surgery. If the questionnaire had not been returned within 4 weeks, a reminder was sent. Data regarding preoperative pain and acute postoperative pain were collected from the records of our earlier studies concerning acute pain. The patient characteristics and surgical outcomes were collected from the patients' medical records.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The prevalence of persistent postsurgical pain 6 months after hysterectomy.

RESULTS

The response rate was 94% (227 respondents). Twenty-seven (18.9%) of 143 patients who had no pain preoperatively had persistent pain after surgery. Overall, 26.0% of patients had persistent pelvic pain 6 months after surgery. On an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS), most of the patients rated their average pain as mild (NRS 0 to 3) and only 6.9% rated their worst pain as severe (NRS 7 to 10). Smoking, acute postoperative pain at 4 h after surgery and a laparoscopic approach were significantly associated with persistent pain in a multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSION

Persistent posthysterectomy pain is common, but pain is mild and does not interfere with daily activities for most of the patients 6 months after surgery. Smoking is the strongest predictor for persistent pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT 01537731.