Opioid-free anesthesia with a mixture of dexmedetomidine, ketamine, and lidocaine in one syringe for surgery in obese patients

A Comparison of Analgesic and Recovery Profiles of Ketamine, Lignocaine, and Dexmedetomidine (KeLiDex) Versus Fentanyl-Based Anesthesia in Laparoscopic Nephrectomies: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

In the search for opioid-free anesthesia, notable numbers of drugs, singly or in combinations, have been tested with variable results. However, most of the drugs used are not as strong as opioids. Even if some non-opioid drugs are potent enough, they cause significant untoward effects, necessitating the use of lower effective dosages of multiple drugs as a substitute. The present pilot study evaluated low-dose combinations of ketamine, lignocaine, and dexmedetomidine (KeLiDex) against fentanyl-based anesthesia for analgesia and recovery profiles in laparoscopic nephrectomies.

METHODS

Twenty patients (10 in each group) randomly received KeLiDex or fentanyl infusion as an analgesic component for balanced general anesthesia. Entire patients also received paracetamol and quadratus lumborum block-2. Anesthesia depth, neuromuscular blockade, and reversal were standardized. Intraoperative hemodynamic variation, time to extubation after reversal (T-tEAR) administration, postanesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge readiness assessed using modified Aldrete score, sedations using Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, postoperative pain, and rescue analgesia consumptions were compared using different validated scales. P-value <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

The KeLiDex group had a significantly lower heart rate (HR) between 45-90 minutes and at the time of reversal. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) (mean ± standard deviation (SD)) differed significantly at only a 60-minute interval (KeLiDex group 80.90 ± 9.50 versus fentanyl group 92.60 ± 16.13 mmHg, p-value 0.041). The Friedman test for change in HR and MAP over time within each group was also insignificant. The mean ± SD of T-tEAR was 6.37 ± 2.13 in KeLiDex, and 8.18 ± 2.92 minutes in the fentanyl group, p-value 0.27. Sedation scores, Modified Alderette scores, pain scores, and rescue analgesic requirements were also comparable.

CONCLUSION

KeLiDex could effectively control hemodynamics and pain both at rest and in movements in line with fentanyl-based anesthesia for laparoscopic nephrectomies. Further, recovery from the anesthesia, sedation, and PACU discharge readiness were similar.

[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.

Efficacy of intravenous dexmedetomidine-lignocaine infusion compared to morphine for intraoperative haemodynamic stability in modified radical mastectomy: A randomised controlled trial

Background and Aims

In recent times, non-opioid analgesic-based anaesthesia has been gaining popularity as it can achieve the goals of hypnosis, amnesia, and haemodynamic stability while avoiding opioid side effects. Our study compares the efficacy of opioid-free anaesthesia and opioid-based general anaesthesia regarding intraoperative haemodynamic stability, anaesthetic requirements, awareness, and recovery profile.

Methods

After receiving ethical approval and registering the trial, we conducted this randomised, single-blinded study on American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II patients who were aged 18-65 and were scheduled for modified radical mastectomy under general anaesthesia. Patients were randomised into two groups of 60 each. Group DL received IV dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg loading over 10 min, 10 min before induction and 0.5 μg/kg/h infusion after that along with IV lignocaine 1.5 mg/kg at bolus followed by 1.5 mg/kg/h infusion. Group MN received IV morphine 0.15 mg/kg. Standard monitoring and general anaesthesia protocol were followed. Intraoperative haemodynamics, anaesthetic requirement, extubation time, and recovery profile were monitored. Data were analysed using Stata version 14 software, and statistical tests (Chi-squared test for qualitative variables, unpaired t-test and Mann-Whitney U test for quantitative variables) were performed.

Results

Both groups had comparable haemodynamic stability (P > 0.05). Group DL had a significantly lower propofol requirement for induction and maintenance (P < 0.001). Ramsay sedation score (P = 0.002) and extubation time (P = 0.029) were significantly higher in Group MN. The recovery profile was favourable in Group DL, with there being lower postoperative complications.

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine and lignocaine IV infusion demonstrated stable intraoperative haemodynamic stability, lower anaesthetic requirement, and better recovery profile than morphine without significant complications.

Is esketamine-based opioid-free anesthesia more superior for postoperative analgesia in obstructive sleep apnea patients undergoing bariatric surgery? A study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) can certainly prevent nausea and vomiting after bariatric surgery (BS), but its postoperative analgesic effect is still controversial. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a prominent feature of morbid obesity in BS and accounts for a very high proportion, which significantly increases the difficulty of patients' airway management. Those patients will be more representative and highlight the advantages of OFA. It is not clear whether esketamine can play a more prominent role in OFA for postoperative analgesia. Therefore, this study aims to explore the postoperative analgesic effect of esketamine-based OFA on BS patients with OSA.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This single-center, prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind study is planned to recruit 48 participants to undergo BS from May 2022 to April 2023. Patients will be randomly assigned to the OFA group and opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) group in a ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome is the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at different times postoperatively. Secondary outcomes include analgesic intake, the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), Leiden Surgical Rating Scale (L-SRS), postoperative agitation and chills, PACU stay time, EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D), length of hospital stay, intraoperative awareness, and hemodynamically unstable treatments.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study may explain the analgesic effect of esketamine-based OFA on patients undergoing BS combined with OSA, and provide evidence and insight for perioperative pain management.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is initiated by the Ethics Committee of The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University [YXLL-KY-2022(035)]. The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

[https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05386979], identifier [NCT05386979].

Ketamine as a component of multimodal analgesia for pain management in bariatric surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

Anaesthesia in morbidly obese people is challenging with a high dose of opioid consumption. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) summaries evidence comparing ketamine to placebo for pain management after bariatric surgery.

Methods

We used PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 guidelines to conduct this study. The random-effects model was adopted using Review Manager Version 5.3 for pooled estimates.

Results

Seven RCTs published between 2009 and 2021 were eligible, including a total of 412 patients (202 patients in the ketamine group and 210 patients in the control group). In the ketamine group total opioid consumption during the first 24 h postoperatively was reduced (mean difference, MD = −5.89; 95% CI [-10.39, −1.38], p = 0.01), lower pain score at 4 h (MD = −0.81; 95% CI [-1.52, −0.10], p = 0.03), pain score at 8 h (MD = −1.00; 95% CI [-1.21, −0.79], p < 0.01), and shorter hospital stay (MD = −0.10; 95% CI [-0.20, −0.01], p = 0.03). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding duration of anaesthesia (MD = −3.42; 95% CI [-8.62, 1.82], p = 0.20), or sedation score (MD = −0.02; 95% CI [-0.21, 0.17], p = 0.84). As concern the postoperative complications, risks of postoperative nausea and vomiting(OR = 0.75; 95% CI [0.27, 2.04], p = 0.56), hallucinations (OR = 5.47; 95% CI [0.26, 117.23], p = 0.28), dizziness (OR = 1.05; 95% CI [0.14, 7.78], p = 0.96), and euphoria (OR = 5.77; 95% CI [0.65, 51.52], p = 0.12) were not different between the two groups either.

Conclusion

Ketamine could be an effective and safe technique for pain management following bariatric surgery. It reduces opioid consumption, postoperative pain, and hospital stay.

RegistrationThis review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022296484).

•

This study comparing ketamine infusion or bolus with placebo when used with morphine, paracetamol or tramadol for pain management following bariatric surgery demonstrated that:

•

Ketamine was associated with lower opioid consumption during the 24 h postoperatively.

•

Ketamine decreased VAS scores at H4 and H8, and shorten the hospital stay.

•

Ketamine ensure a similar duration of anaesthesia, postoperative sedation scores, PONV, and postoperative complications rate (hallucinations, headache, euphoria and dizziness).

Injection of Lidocaine Alone versus Lidocaine plus Dexmedetomidine in Impacted Third Molar Extraction Surgery, a Double-Blind Randomized Control Trial for Postoperative Pain Evaluation

Objectives

Administration of medications such as dexmedetomidine as a topical anesthetic has been suggested in the pain control in dentistry. This double-blind randomized control trial study evaluated postoperative pain and associated factors following impacted third molar extraction surgery. Lidocaine alone was taken as the control and lidocaine plus dexmedetomidine as the intervention.

Materials and Methods

Forty patients undergoing mandibular third molar extraction entered the study and were randomly allocated to the control and interventional groups. 0.15 ml of dexmedetomidine was added to each lidocaine cartridge and the drug concentration was adjusted to 15 μg for the intervention group while only lidocaine was used in the control group. A visual analog scale was used to measure and record pain levels at the end of the surgery and 6, 12, and 24 hours after the surgery and number of painkillers taken by the patients after the surgery was also recorded.

Results

Pain scores of the intervention group decreased significantly during the surgery and also 6, 12, and 24 hours after the surgery compared to the control group. The pain score was correlated significantly with our intervention during the surgery and also 6 and 12 hours after that (all P value < 0.05). There was a nonsignificant reduction in the number of painkillers taken by the patients at 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery (all P value > 0.05).

Conclusion

In patients undergoing molar surgery, administration of a combination of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine is beneficial for the pain control. Clinical Relevance. Compared to the injection of lidocaine alone, combination of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine can be used for a better pain control in molar surgeries.