Postoperative Pain and Analgesic Requirements After Anesthesia with Sevoflurane, Desflurane or Propofol

Using the nociception level index to compare the intraoperative antinociceptive effect of propofol and sevoflurane during clinical and experimental noxious stimulus in patients under general anesthesia

STUDY

Propofol and sevoflurane are two anesthetic agents widely used to induce and maintain general anesthesia (GA). Their intrinsic antinociceptive properties remain unclear and are still debated.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether propofol presents stronger antinociceptive properties than sevoflurane using intraoperative clinical and experimental noxious stimulations and evaluating postoperative pain outcomes.

DESIGN

A prospective randomized monocentric trial.

SETTING

Perioperative care.

PATIENTS

60 adult patients with ASA status I to III who underwent elective abdominal laparoscopic surgery under GA were randomized either in propofol or sevoflurane group to induce and maintain GA.

INTERVENTIONS

We used clinical and experimental noxious stimulations (intubation, tetanic stimulation) to assess the antinociceptive properties of propofol and sevoflurane in patients under GA and monitored using the NOL index, BIS index, heart rate, and mean arterial blood pressure.

MEASUREMENTS

We measured the difference in the NOL index alterations after intubation and tetanic stimulation during either intravenous anesthesia (propofol) or inhaled anesthesia (sevoflurane). We also intraoperatively measured the NOL index and remifentanil consumption and recorded postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption in the post-anesthesia care unit. Intraoperative management was standardized by targeting similar values of depth of anesthesia (BIS index), hemodynamic (HR and MAP), NOL index values (below the threshold of 20), same multimodal analgesia and type of surgery.

MAIN RESULTS

We found the antinociceptive properties of propofol and sevoflurane similar. The only minor difference was after tetanic stimulation: the delta NOL was higher in the sevoflurane group (39 ± 13 for the propofol group versus 47 ± 15 for sevoflurane; P = 0.04). Intraoperative and postoperative pain outcomes and opioid consumption were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a precise intraoperative experimental and clinical protocol using the NOL index, propofol does not provide a higher level of antinociception during anesthesia or analgesia after surgery when compared to sevoflurane. Anesthesiologists may prefer propofol over sevoflurane to reduce PONV or anesthesia-related pollution, but not for superior antinociceptive properties.

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.

Future liver remnant volume is associated with postoperative fentanyl consumption following open donor hepatectomy: a retrospective multivariate analysis

PURPOSE

Liver resection has a risk of postoperative hepatic dysfunction, including drug metabolism. Since fentanyl is primarily metabolized in the liver, liver resection requires exercising caution against fentanyl overdose in postoperative analgesia. The rationale for dose adjustment of fentanyl in the preoperative prescription for patients undergoing liver resection remains unclear. We examined whether postoperative fentanyl consumption is associated with the future liver remnant after liver resection and investigated factors influencing fentanyl consumption.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 89 living liver donors undergoing open liver resection received intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with fentanyl 2 mg with thoracic epidural analgesia. The primary outcome was postoperative hourly consumption of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with fentanyl. Future liver remnant volume (ml) and the ratio of future liver remnant volume to whole liver volume (%) were estimated by computed tomography volumetry and compared to determine which correlated more strongly with fentanyl hourly consumption. Multivariable analysis identified independent factors affecting fentanyl consumption, with adjustments for patient characteristics and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia setting.

RESULTS

Future liver remnant volume (ml) was significantly correlated more strongly than the ratio of future liver remnant (%) with postoperative fentanyl consumption (r = 0.53 vs. 0.36, p < 0.001). Larger future liver remnant volume (β = 0.25, p = 0.006) and age < 45 years (β = 0.24, p = 0.009) were independently associated with higher fentanyl consumption, while sex and weight were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Future liver remnant volume was significantly associated with postoperative fentanyl consumption. Smaller remnant liver volume and older age (≥ 45 years) were independent factors reducing postoperative fentanyl consumption in patients undergoing open donor 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.

Effects of Propofol versus Sevoflurane on Postoperative Pain and Neuroendocrine Stress Response in Oocyte Pickup Patients

Background

Pain aggravates the autonomic response to stress and raises neuroendocrine stress hormone levels. We compared the effects of propofol and sevoflurane on postoperative pain and neuroendocrine stress hormones. A prospective, randomized, and controlled trial was conducted with 60 patients.

Methods

We randomly allocated patients to groups P (remifentanil/propofol, n = 30) and S (remifentanil/sevoflurane, n = 30). Preoperative blood samples were taken to measure serum adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH), glucagon, cortisol, aldosterone, and prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) levels. Intraoperatively and postoperatively, clinical parameters were monitored at different time points. The hormone levels were again measured in the follicular fluid and blood postoperatively.

Result

Demographic data were similar. The preoperative serum aldosterone levels were significantly higher in group P (p=0.001). Preoperative and postoperative serum ACTH, glucagon, cortisol, and PGE2 levels were significantly different in group P (p=0.009, p=0.004, p=0.029, and p=0.002); serum ACTH, glucagon, and PGE2 levels increased while serum cortisol levels decreased postoperatively. In group S, serum CRH and aldosterone levels, both increased in the postoperative period compared to the preoperative (p=0.001, p=0.006). Postoperatively, glucagon and PGE2 levels were both higher in group P than group S (p=0.019, p=0.015). In postoperative follicular fluid, glucagon and PGE2 levels were higher in group P, while cortisol levels were higher in group S (p=0.001, p=0.007, and p=0.001).

Conclusion

The effects of anesthetic agents were different. In group P, in the preoperative and postoperative evaluation, ACTH, glucagon, and PGE2 increased postoperatively, while cortisol decreased. In group S, aldosterone and CRH increased postoperatively. Glucagon and PG E2 were higher in group P than S, postoperatively.

Comparison of the impact of propofol versus sevoflurane on early postoperative recovery in living donors after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a prospective randomized controlled study

Background

Enhancing postoperative recovery of the donor is important to encourage living kidney donation. We investigated the effects of anesthetic agents (intravenous [IV] propofol versus inhaled [IH] sevoflurane) on the quality of early recovery of healthy living kidney donors after hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HALN) under analgesic intrathecal morphine injection.

Methods

This single-center, prospective randomized controlled study enrolled 80 living donors undergoing HALN from October 2019 to June 2020 at Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital. Donors were randomly assigned to the IV propofol group or IH sevoflurane group. To measure the quality of recovery, we used the Korean version of the Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire (QoR-40 K) on postoperative day (POD) 1, and ambulation (success rate, number of footsteps) 6–12 h after surgery and on POD 1. The pain score for the wound site, IV opioid requirement, postoperative complications including incidences of nausea/vomiting, and length of in-hospital stay were also assessed.

Results

The global QoR-40 K score and all subscale scores (physical comfort, emotional state, physical independence, psychological support, and pain) were significantly higher in the IV propofol group than in the IH sevoflurane group. The numbers of footsteps at all time points were also higher in the IV propofol group. Donors in the IV propofol group had a lower incidence of nausea/vomiting, and a shorter hospitalization period.

Conclusions

Total IV anesthesia with propofol led to better early postoperative recovery than that associated with IH sevoflurane.

Trial registration

Clinical Research Information Service, Republic of Korea (approval number: KCT0004351) on October 18, 2019.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Anesthesia recovery comparison between remifentanil-propofol and remifentanil-desflurane guided by Bispectral Index® monitoring]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is a strong demand for fast and predictable anesthesia recovery with few side effects. Choice of the hypnotic agent could impact on that. This study investigated the differences between recoveries after remifentanil-propofol and remifentanil-desflurane anesthesias guided by bispectral index (BIS^®).

METHODS

Forty patients were randomly assigned into 2 groups according to the anesthesia technique applied: remifentanil-propofol (REM-PRO) and remifentanil-desflurane (REM-DES). After the discontinuation of the anesthetics, the times to extubation, to obey commands and to recover the airway protection reflex were recorted. In the post-anesthetic recovery room (PACU) it was recorded the occurrence of nausea and vomiting (PONV), scores of Ramsay sedation scale and of numeric pain scale (NPS), morphine dose and length of stay in the unit.

RESULTS

Data from 38 patients were analyzed: 18 from REM-PRO and 20 from REM-DES group. Anesthesia times were similar (REM-PRO=193min, SD 79.9 vs. 175.7min, SD 87.9 REM-DES; p=0.5). REM-DES had shorter times than REM-PRO group: time to follow command (8.5min; SD 3.0 vs. 5.6min; SD 2.5; p=0.0) and extubation time (6.2 minutes; 3.1-8.5 vs. 9.5 minutes; 4.9-14.4; p=0.0). Times to recover airway protective reflex were similar: 16 patients from REM-PRO (88.9%) restored the airway protective reflex 2min after extubation vs. 17 from REM-DES (89.5%); and 2 patients from REM-PRO (11.1%) vs. 2 from REM-DES (10.5%) 6min after extubation, p=1. Ramsay sedation score, NPS, PONV incidents, morphine dose and PACU stay of length PACU were also similar.

CONCLUSION

Remifentanil-desflurane-based anesthesia has a faster extubation time and to follow command than remifentanil-propofol-based anesthesia when both guided by BIS^®.

Effects of Intra-Operative Total Intravenous Anaesthesia with Propofol versus Inhalational Anaesthesia with Sevoflurane on Post-Operative Pain in Liver Surgery: A Retrospective Case-Control Study

Background

Patients receiving total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol have been shown to experience less postoperative pain. We evaluated the post-operative analgesic effects of propofol compared with sevoflurane maintenance of anesthesia in liver surgery. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02179437).

Methods

In this retrospective study, records of patients who underwent liver surgery between 2010 and 2013 were reviewed. Ninety-five patients anesthetized with propofol TIVA were matched with 95 patients anesthetized with sevoflurane. Numeric pain rating scale (NRS) pain scores, postoperative morphine consumption, side effects and patients’ satisfaction with pain relief were evaluated.

Results

The TIVA group reported lower NRS pain scores during coughing on postoperative days 1 and 2 but not 3 (p = 0.0127, p = 0.0472, p = 0.4556 respectively). They also consumed significantly less daily (p = 0.001 on day 1, p = 0.0231 on day 2, p = 0.0004 on day 3), accumulative (p = 0.001 on day 1, p<0.0001 on day 2 and p = 0.0064 on day 3) and total morphine (p = 0.03) when compared with the sevoflurane group. There were no differences in total duration of intravenous patient controlled analgesia (PCA) morphine use and patient satisfaction. No difference was found in reported side effects.

Conclusion

Patients anesthetized with propofol TIVA reported less pain during coughing and consumed less daily, accumulative and total morphine after liver surgery.

The Acute to Chronic Pain Transition: Can Chronic Pain Be Prevented?

Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is a distressing disease process that can lead to long-term disability, reduced quality of life, and increased health care spending. Although the exact mechanism of development of CPSP is unknown, nerve injury and inflammation may lead to peripheral and central sensitization. Given the complexity of the disease process, no novel treatment has been identified. The preoperative use of multimodal analgesia has been shown to decrease acute postoperative pain, but it has no proven efficacy in preventing development of CPSP.

Effects of changing from sevoflurane to desflurane on the recovery profile after sevoflurane induction: a randomized controlled study

PURPOSE

Desflurane has the lowest solubility of currently available volatile anesthetics and may allow for more rapid emergence and recovery compared with sevoflurane. Nevertheless, after volatile induction with sevoflurane, it has not been determined whether the use of desflurane provides faster emergence and recovery. The present study aimed to elucidate the effects of changing from sevoflurane to desflurane during the early part of anesthesia.

METHODS

Fifty-two patients who were scheduled for vitreous surgery with general anesthesia were enrolled in this randomized controlled study. Anesthesia was induced with volatile induction consisting of 100% oxygen (6 L·min(-1)) and 5% sevoflurane. For anesthesia maintenance, patients were randomized to receive 1-2% sevoflurane or 3-6% desflurane. In the desflurane group, the anesthetic agent was changed from sevoflurane to desflurane within five minutes following endotracheal intubation. After surgery, we assessed the following endpoints: the times from discontinuing volatile anesthetics to eye opening, obeying the command to squeeze the investigator's hand, tracheal extubation, and orientation to the patients' full name, date, and place.

RESULTS

Emergence and recovery were significantly faster in the desflurane group than in the sevoflurane group in times to mean (SD) eye opening [6.5 (2.9) vs 10.1(3.0) min, respectively; mean difference, 3.6 min; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.9 to 5.3; P < 0.001], obeying commands [6.6 (2.7) vs 10.1 (3.1) min, respectively; mean difference, 3.5 min; 95% CI, 1.9 to 5.2; P < 0.001], and tracheal extubation [7.0 (2.5) vs 10.6 (3.0) min, respectively; mean difference, 3.6 min; 95% CI, 1.9 to 5.1; P < 0.001]. Similarly, the times from discontinuation of volatile anesthetics to orientation to the patients' full name, date, and place were significantly shorter in the desflurane group compared with the sevoflurane group. There were no significant differences between groups on a 100-mm visual analogue scale assessing postoperative nausea and vomiting, eye pain, and patient satisfaction regarding anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

Changing the anesthetic agent from sevoflurane to desflurane after sevoflurane induction provides faster emergence and recovery compared with sevoflurane anesthesia. This study protocol was registered at http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm , (UMIN000009941).

Comparison between sevoflurane and desflurane on emergence and recovery characteristics of children undergoing surgery for spinal dysraphism

Background and Aims:

Rapid recovery is desirable after neurosurgery as it enables early post-operative neurological evaluation and prompt management of complications. Studies have been rare comparing the recovery characteristics in paediatric neurosurgical patients. Hence, this study was carried out to compare the effect of sevoflurane and desflurane anaesthesia on emergence and extubation in children undergoing spinal surgery.

Methods:

Sixty children, aged 1–12 years, undergoing elective surgery for lumbo-sacral spinal dysraphism were enrolled. Anaesthesia was induced with sevoflurane using a face mask. The children were then randomised to receive either sevoflurane or desflurane with oxygen and nitrous oxide, fentanyl (1 μg/kg/h) and rocuronium. The anaesthetic depth was guided by bispectral index (BIS^®) monitoring with a target BIS^® between 45 and 55. Perioperative data with regard to demographic profile, haemodynamics, emergence and extubation times, modified Aldrete score (MAS), pain (objective pain score), agitation (Cole's agitation score), time to first analgesic and complications, thereof, were recorded. Statistical analysis was done using STATA 11.2 (StataCorp., College Station, TX, USA) and data are presented as median (range) or mean ± standard deviation.

Results:

The demographic profile, haemodynamics, MAS, pain and agitation scores and time to first analgesic were comparable in between the two groups (P > 0.05). The emergence time was shorter in desflurane group (2.75 [0.85–12] min) as compared to sevoflurane (8 [2.5–14] min) (P < 0.0001). The extubation time was also shorter in desflurane group (3 [0.8–10] min) as compared to the sevoflurane group (5.5 [1.2–14] min) (P = 0.0003).

Conclusion:

Desflurane provided earlier tracheal extubation and emergence as compared to sevoflurane in children undergoing surgery for lumbo-sacral spinal dysraphism.

Propofol: a review of its role in pediatric anesthesia and sedation

Propofol is an intravenous agent used commonly for the induction and maintenance of anesthesia, procedural, and critical care sedation in children. The mechanisms of action on the central nervous system involve interactions at various neurotransmitter receptors, especially the gamma-aminobutyric acid A receptor. Approved for use in the USA by the Food and Drug Administration in 1989, its use for induction of anesthesia in children less than 3 years of age still remains off-label. Despite its wide use in pediatric anesthesia, there is conflicting literature about its safety and serious adverse effects in particular subsets of children. Particularly as children are not "little adults", in this review, we emphasize the maturational aspects of propofol pharmacokinetics. Despite the myriad of propofol pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic studies and the ability to use allometrical scaling to smooth out differences due to size and age, there is no optimal model that can be used in target controlled infusion pumps for providing closed loop total intravenous anesthesia in children. As the commercial formulation of propofol is a nutrient-rich emulsion, the risk for bacterial contamination exists despite the Food and Drug Administration mandating addition of antimicrobial preservative, calling for manufacturers' directions to discard open vials after 6 h. While propofol has advantages over inhalation anesthesia such as less postoperative nausea and emergence delirium in children, pain on injection remains a problem even with newer formulations. Propofol is known to depress mitochondrial function by its action as an uncoupling agent in oxidative phosphorylation. This has implications for children with mitochondrial diseases and the occurrence of propofol-related infusion syndrome, a rare but seriously life-threatening complication of propofol. At the time of this review, there is no direct evidence in humans for propofol-induced neurotoxicity to the infant brain; however, current concerns of neuroapoptosis in developing brains induced by propofol persist and continue to be a focus of research.

[Effect of intraoperative esmolol infusion on anesthetic, analgesic requirements and postoperative nausea-vomitting in a group of laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients]

PURPOSE

Postoperative pain and nausea/vomitting (PNV) are common in laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. Sympatholytic agents might decrease requirements for intravenous or inhalation anesthetics and opioids. In this study we aimed to analyze effects of esmolol on intraoperative anesthetic-postoperative analgesic requirements, postoperative pain and PNV.

METHODS

Sixty patients have been included. Propofol, remifentanil and vecuronium were used for induction. Study groups were as follows; I - Esmolol infusion was added to maintenance anesthetics (propofol and remifentanil), II - Only propofol and remifentanil was used during maintenance, III - Esmolol infusion was added to maintenance anesthetics (desflurane and remifentanil), IV - Only desflurane and remifentanil was used during maintenance. They have been followed up for 24h for PNV and analgesic requirements. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain was also been evaluated.

RESULTS

VAS scores were significantly lowest in group I (p=0.001-0.028). PNV incidence was significantly lowest in group I (p=0.026). PNV incidence was also lower in group III compared to group IV (p=0.032). Analgesic requirements were significantly lower in group I and was lower in group III compared to group IV (p=0.005). Heart rates were significantly lower in esmolol groups (group I and III) compared to their controls (p=0.001) however blood pressures were similar in all groups (p=0.594). Comparison of esmolol groups with controls revealed that there is a significant decrease in anesthetic and opioid requirements (p=0.024-0.03).

CONCLUSION

Using esmolol during anesthetic maintenance significantly decreases anesthetic-analgesic requirements, postoperative pain and PNV.

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

BACKGROUND

Post-operative pain continues to be a major problem. Some previous studies have suggested that patients anaesthetised with propofol have less pain after surgery than those anesthetised with volatiles. However, the results of previous studies are conflicting. We designed a large-scale trial to study, whether propofol or sevoflurane is more analgesic than the other. We measured opioid consumption in the acute post-operative phase after laparoscopic hysterectomy.

METHODS

In a randomised, prospective single-blind trial, we evaluated the consumption of oxycodone and pain intensity in 148 women for 20 h after laparoscopic hysterectomy under propofol or sevoflurane anaesthesia. The primary endpoint was the cumulative amount of oxycodone consumed. Secondary endpoints were pain scores [numeric rating scale (NRS)] at rest and with coughing, severity of nausea and state of sedation.

RESULTS

The consumption of oxycodone and the NRS pain scores did not differ between the groups. The oxycodone consumed during first 20 h after surgery was 42.5 (95% confidence interval 38.3-46.6) mg and 42.8 (37.3-48.4) mg in propofol- and sevoflurane-anaesthetised patients, respectively (P = 0.919). NRS scores for nausea were higher in the patients receiving sevoflurane during the first 60 min in the post-anaesthesia care unit, leading to higher consumption of rescue antiemetics. Sedation scores differed in favour of sevoflurane only at 4 h time point after anaesthesia. Patient characteristics did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, comparing sevoflurane with propofol for maintenance of general anaesthesia, the choice of anaesthetic had no effect on the requirement of oxycodone or intensity of pain after surgery.

Randomized, controlled trial comparing the effects of anesthesia with propofol, isoflurane, desflurane and sevoflurane on pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Pain is the primary complaint and the main reason for prolonged recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The authors hypothesized that patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy will have less pain four hours after surgery when receiving maintenance of anesthesia with propofol when compared to isoflurane, desflurane, or sevoflurane.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized trial, 80 patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were assigned to propofol, isoflurane, desflurane, or sevoflurane for the maintenance of anesthesia. Our primary outcome was pain measured on the numeric analog scale four hours after surgery. We also recorded intraoperative use of opioids as well as analgesic consumption during the first 24h after surgery.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in pain scores four hours after surgery (p=0.72). There were also no statistically significant differences in pain scores between treatment groups during the 24h after surgery (p=0.45). Intraoperative use of fentanyl and morphine did not vary significantly among the groups (p=0.21 and 0.24, respectively). There were no differences in total morphine and hydrocodone/APAP use during the first 24h (p=0.61 and 0.53, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving maintenance of general anesthesia with propofol do not have less pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy when compared to isoflurane, desflurane, or sevoflurane.

Sevoflurane versus propofol anesthesia in patients undergoing lumbar spondylodesis: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Spondylodesis is a procedure aiming at providing stability in one or more spinal segments. The aim of our study was to compare sevoflurane and propofol as induction and maintenance agents, focusing on hemodynamic stability, recovery characteristics, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and pain intensity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy patients, with a physical status according to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II, 50-72 y old, undergoing selective lumbar spondylodesis were enrolled.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between groups in overall mean hemodynamic parameters. No differences in fluid administration and vasoactive substances used were noted. Postoperatively, there was a significant difference in overall mean visual analog score at rest and at cough, with the sevoflurane group showing lower values. No differences in the incidence of nausea, vomiting, shivering, postoperative sedation scores, and orientation to place were revealed. Orientation to time exhibited a statistically significant difference at the time just after transfer to the post-anesthesia care unit, where more patients of the sevoflurane group seemed to be well oriented.

CONCLUSIONS

Sevoflurane and propofol anesthesia for lumbar spondylodesis surgery provide safe and comparable results.

Propofol reduces early post-operative pain after gynecological laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

There is some evidence that propofol may reduce post-operative pain. However, the results on the analgesic effects of propofol are inconsistent. Thus, we hypothesized that propofol reduces acute pain if confounding factors like opioids are avoided.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, subject- and assessor-blind, parallel-group, head-to-head comparative study, 90 American Society of Anesthesiologists I or II females underwent elective laparoscopies were randomized to receive either propofol-based (PR), or sevoflurane-based (SR), or sevoflurane-propofol-based anesthesia (SPR). Pain score at rest assessed by a numerical rating scale at 0.5 h after surgery was the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included pain score at 1 and 24 h post-operatively, duration of post-anesthesia care units stay (PACU), incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting, incidence of shivering, and post-operative quality of recovery score (QoR-40) within the first 24 h post-operatively.

RESULTS

No patients received rescue analgesia. The pain score at 0.5 h post-operatively was less in group PR when compared with group SR (0.7 ± 1.4 vs. 2.1 ± 1.8; P = 0.010) or group SPR (0.7 ± 1.4 vs. 2.1 ± 2.2; P = 0.008). Group PR was also associated with shorter PACU stay than group SR (21.8 ± 5.7 vs. 26.2 ± 6.9; P = 0.050) or group SPR (21.8 ± 5.7 vs. 27.8 ± 8.9; P = 0.005). Intraoperative bispectral index values, hemodynamic values and post-operative QoR-40 scores did not differ among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol anesthesia was associated with significantly less pain at 0.5 and 1 h after surgery in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopies with planned opioid-free post-operative analgesia.

Effects of vitamin C and E combination on element and oxidative stress levels in the blood of operative patients under desflurane anesthesia

We investigated effects of vitamin C and E (VCE) administration on desflurane-induced oxidative toxicity and element changes in the blood of operative patients under desflurane general anesthesia. Forty American Society of Anesthesiologists I or II Physical Status adult patients were scheduled for elective surgery. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. Control and VCE group was introduced to anesthesia with desflurane. VCE was administreted to patients in the control and VCE group before 1 hour of anesthesia with desflurane. Baseline (preoperative) and postoperative (at the 1(st), the 24(th), and 72(th) h), blood samples were taken from the first and second groups. Erythrocyte and plasma lipid peroxidation levels at the 1(st), 24(th), and 72(th) hours were higher in the control than in baseline group, although their levels at the same periods were lower in the VCE group than in the control. Vitamin E levels at the postoperative 1(st) and 24(th) hours and erythrocyte glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) activity at the postoperative 1(st), 24(th), and 72(th) hours was lower than in baseline values. Erythrocyte GSH-Px activity and plasma vitamins A, C, and E levels at the postoperative 1(st), 24(th), and 72(th) hours were higher in the VCE group than in the control group. Erythrocyte and plasma reduced glutathione, plasma β-carotene, and serum copper, while zinc, selenium, aluminum, iron, magnesium, and calcium levels did not differ between preoperative and postoperative periods in both groups. In conclusion, VCE combination prevented the desflurane-induced vitamin E and GSH-Px consumptions to strengthen the antioxidant levels in the blood of operative patients.

Prevalence and influence of gender, age, and type of surgery on postoperative pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Postoperative pain is frequent despite of the therapeutic armamentarium available. Its development is related with factors inherent to the surgery and patient. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of postoperative pain in hospitalized patients and its association with gender and type of surgery.

METHODS

This is a transversal study in which interviews were done with 187 patients undergoing surgeries. The incidence of pain in the first 24 hours and its severity according to a numeric rating scale: mild (1 to 3), moderate (4 to 6), and severe (7 to 10), were evaluated.

RESULTS

Three of 190 patients interviewed were excluded due to difficulties understanding the method used to evaluate the level of pain. In the study population, 66.8% (n = 125) were females; mean age 45.83 +/- 16.17 years, but 25.1% (n = 47) were 60 years old or more. In the first 24 hours, 46% (n = 85) of the patients reported pain. Among male patients, 48.4% (n = 30) complained of pain, while 66.8% (n = 55) of the females did so. The prevalence of pain showed no differences regarding gender (p = 0.536) and age (p = 0.465). As for pain severity, 29.4% of the patients referred mild pain, it was moderate in 43.5%, and severe in 27.1%. A significant association between the incidence of postoperative pain and type of surgery was observed (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that an elevated number of patients experience pain in the first 24 hours after the surgery. The incidence of pain was higher in patients undergoing general surgery.