The Effect of Opioid-Free Anesthesia on the Quality of Recovery After Gynecological Laparoscopy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Effect of Rectus Sheath Block on Postoperative Quality of Recovery After Transabdominal Midline Gynecological Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction

Rectus sheath block is an emerging technique that provide effective perioperative analgesia and is related to lower perioperative opioid consumption and decrease opioid-related adverse effects. The present research is designed to explore the effect of rectus sheath block on recovery quality in patients following transabdominal midline gynecological surgery.

Methods

Ninety female patients following elective transabdominal midline gynecological surgery were enrolled. Patients were randomized to group R (n = 45) which receive preoperative ultrasound-guided RSB with 0.4% ropivacaine or group C which is control group (n = 45). The primary outcome was the quality of recovery on the first postoperative day. The quality of recovery was assessed by the 40-item Quality of Recovery questionnaire (QoR-40). Secondary outcomes included the intraoperative opioid consumption, time to first flatus and time to first discharging from bed, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and patient satisfaction.

Results

The patients in two groups had comparable baseline characteristics. Postoperative global QoR-40 scores were significantly better in group R than in group C (165.0[159.5-170.0] vs 155.0[150.0-157.0], respectively; median difference 12[95% confidence interval: 8-15, P<0.001]). Preoperative RSB reduced intraoperative opioid consumption, reduced the time to first flatus, time to first discharging from bed and the post anaesthesia care unit discharge time. Furthermore, group R showed greater patient satisfaction.

Conclusion

A single preoperative administration of RSB with ropivacaine improved the quality of recovery in patients following transabdominal midline gynecological surgery.

Effect of opioid-free anesthesia on postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecological surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication, that can reduce patient satisfaction and may lead to serious consequences, such as wound dehiscence. Many strategies have been proposed to prevent PONV; however, it remains common, especially in high-risk surgeries such as gynecological surgery. In recent years, opioid-free anesthesia has been widely studied because it minimizes adverse reactions of opioids, such as nausea, vomiting, and itching; however, conclusions have been inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the effects of opioid-free anesthesia on PONV in patients undergoing gynecological surgery. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, from inception to 28 August 2023, was performed. Keywords and other free terms were used with Boolean operators (OR and, AND) to combine searches. This review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Results: Six studies involving 514 patients who underwent gynecological surgery were included. The forest plot revealed that the incidence of PONV (risk ratio = 0.52; p < 0.00001) and consumption of postoperative antiemetics use (risk ratio = 0.64; p = 0.03) were significantly lower in the opioid-free anesthesia group. In addition, opioid-free anesthesia improved the quality of recovery (mean difference = 4.69; p < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in postoperative pain scores (mean difference = 0.05; p = 0.85), analgesic use (risk ratio = 1.09; p = 0.65), and the time of extubation (mean difference = -0.89; p = 0.09) between the opioid-free anesthesia and control groups. Conclusion: OFA reduces PONV and the use of antiemetic drugs. In addition, it improves the quality of postoperative recovery. However, OFA can not reduce the postoperative pain scores, analgesic use and the time of extubation. Due to the strength of the evidence, we cannot support OFA as an ideal anesthesia method in gynecological surgery, and the implementation of anesthesia strategies should be case-by-case. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=462044], identifier [CRD42023462044].

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Esketamine opioid-free intravenous anesthesia versus opioid intravenous anesthesia in spontaneous ventilation video-assisted thoracic surgery: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) provides adequate analgesia and can reduce postoperative opioid consumption, but its efficacy in spontaneous ventilation video-assisted thoracic surgery (SV-VATS) has not been demonstrated. We aimed to investigate the hypothesis that OFA could provide the same perioperative pain control as opioid anesthesia (OA), maintain safe and stable respiration and hemodynamics during surgery, and improve postoperative recovery.

Methods

Sixty eligible patients (OFA group: n=30; OA group: n=30) treated between September 15, 2022, and December 15, 2022, at The First Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University were included. They were randomized to receive standard balanced OFA with esketamine or OA with remifentanil combined with sufentanil. The primary outcome was the pain numeric rating score (NRS) at postoperative 24 h, and the secondary outcomes were intraoperative respiratory and hemodynamic data, opioid consumption, vasoactive drug dosage, and recovery in the post-anesthesia care unit and ward.

Results

There was no significant difference in the postoperative pain scores and recovery quality between the two groups. The OFA group had a significantly lower dose of phenylephrine (P=0.001) and a lower incidence of hypotension (P=0.004) during surgery. The OFA group resumed spontaneous respiration faster (P<0.001) and had a higher quality of lung collapse (P=0.02). However, the total doses of propofol and dexmetomidine were higher (P=0.03 and P=0.02), and the time to consciousness was longer (P=0.039) in the OFA group.

Conclusions

OFA provides the same level of postoperative pain control as OA, but it is more advantageous in maintaining circulatory and respiratory stability and improving the quality of pulmonary collapse in SV-VATS.

Opioid-Free Anesthesia for Open Radical Cystectomy Is Feasible and Accelerates Return of Bowel Function: A Matched Cohort Study

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) in open radical cystectomy (ORC) with urinary diversion and to assess the impact on recovery of gastrointestinal function. We hypothesized that OFA would lead to earlier recovery of bowel function. A total of 44 patients who underwent standardized ORC were divided into two groups (OFA group vs. control group). In both groups, patients received epidural analgesia (OFA group: bupivacaine 0.25%, control group: bupivacaine 0.1%, fentanyl 2 mcg/mL, and epinephrine 2 mcg/mL). The primary endpoint was time to first defecation. Secondary endpoints were incidence of postoperative ileus (POI) and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The median time to first defecation was 62.5 h [45.8-80.8] in the OFA group and 118.5 h [82.6-142.3] (p < 0.001) in the control group. With regard to POI (OFA group: 1/22 patients (4.5%); control group: 2/22 (9.1%)) and PONV (OFA group: 5/22 patients (22.7%); control group: 10/22 (45.5%)), trends but no significant results were found (p = 0.99 and p = 0.203, respectively). OFA appears to be feasible in ORC and to improve postoperative functional gastrointestinal recovery by halving the time to first defecation compared with standard fentanyl-based intraoperative anesthesia.

The Performance of Opioid-Free Anesthesia for Bariatric Surgery in Clinical Practice

PURPOSE

Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is an alternative to conventional opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Several small studies and a meta-analysis have suggested advantages of OFA for bariatric surgery, but current evidence is still contradictory, and a universally accepted concept has not yet been established. The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients undergoing bariatric surgery experience less postoperative pain and better postoperative recovery when anesthetized with an OFA regimen than with an OBA regimen.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective observational cohort study, conducted between October 2020 and July 2021, compared patients receiving OFA with patients receiving OBA. Patients were visited 24 and 48 h after the surgical procedure and asked about their postoperative pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Additionally, the quality of recovery-40 questionnaire (QoR-40) and the postoperative opioid requirements were recorded.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients were included and analyzed in this study (OFA: N = 50; OBA: N = 49). The OFA cohort exhibited less postoperative pain than the OBA cohort within 24 h (VAS median [interquartile range (IQR)]: 2.2 [1-4.4] vs. 4.1 [2-6.5]; P ≤ 0.001) and 48 h (VAS median [IQR]: 1.9 [0.4-4.1] vs. 3.1 [1.4-5.8]; P ≤ 0.001) postoperatively. Additionally, the OFA cohort had higher QoR-40 scores and required less opioid therapy postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Based on our results the use of OFA for bariatric surgery results in less pain, reduced opioid requirements, and improved postoperative recovery-adding additional evidence regarding the use of OFA in everyday clinical practice.

The efficacy and safety of an adapted opioid-free anesthesia regimen versus conventional general anesthesia in gynecological surgery for low-resource settings: a randomized pilot study

Introduction

There is scarce data on the safety and efficacy of opioid-free anesthesia (OFA), in resource-limited settings due to the non-availability of dexmedetomidine, the reference OFA agent. We aimed to demonstrate the feasibility, efficacy and safety of a practical OFA protocol not containing dexmedetomidine, adapted for low-resource environments in very painful surgeries like gynecological surgery.

Methods

We conducted a randomized pilot study on ASA I and II women undergoing elective gynecological surgery at a tertiary care hospital in Cameroon. Patients were matched in a ratio of 1:1 into an OFA and a conventional general anesthesia (CGA) group. The OFA protocol entailed the intravenous (IV) magnesium sulfate, lidocaine, ketamine, dexamethasone, propofol, and rocuronium, followed by isoflurane and a continuous infusion of a calibrated mixture of magnesium sulfate, ketamine and clonidine. The CGA protocol was IV dexamethasone, diazepam, fentanyl, propofol, and rocuronium, followed by isoflurane and reinjections of fentanyl propofol and a continuous infusion of normal saline as placebo. The primary endpoints were the success rate of OFA, isoflurane consumption and intraoperative anesthetic complications. The secondary endpoints were postoperative pain intensity, postoperative complications, patient satisfaction assessed using the QoR-40 questionnaire and the financial cost of anesthesia.

Results

We enrolled a total of 36 women undergoing gynecological surgery; 18 in the OFA group and 18 in the CGA group. The success rate of OFA was 100% with significant lesser consumption of isoflurane in the OFA group, no significant intraoperative complication and better intraoperative hemodynamic stability in the OFA group. Postoperatively, compared to the CGA group, the OFA group had statistically significantly less pain during the first 24 h, no morphine consumption for pain relief, had less hypoxemia during the first six hours, less paralytic ileus, less nausea and vomiting, no pruritus and better satisfaction. The mean financial cost of this adapted OFA protocol was statistically significant lesser than that of CGA.

Conclusion

This OFA regimen without dexmedetomidine for a low-resource setting has a promising success rate with few perioperative complications including mild intraoperative hemodynamic changes, decrease postoperative complications, pain, and opioid consumption in patients undergoing elective gynecology surgery.

Trial registration

This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov on 03/02/2021 under the registration number NCT04737473.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-022-01856-6.