Opioid-Free Anesthesia Benefit-Risk Balance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Are There Any Advantages of the Low Opioid Anaesthesia and Non-Opioid Postoperative Analgesia Protocol: A Clinical Observational Study

Purpose

The methods of perioperative analgesia and pain control have changed. The principle of opioid-based analgesia has been modified to multimodal analgesia, followed by LOA (low opioid anaesthesia) and OFA (opioid-free anaesthesia). The aim was to describe the effects of LOA on nausea, vomiting, and pain control during general anaesthesia and postoperative period after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Patients and Methods

The protocol included the study group-40 patients received low-opioid anaesthesia (LOA), and the control group-40 patients received general anaesthesia with opioid analgesia (OA). The scheme of LOA was based on ketamine, lidocaine, magnesium sulfate, paracetamol, and metamizole. The OA was based on standard opioid (fentanyl) administration in induction and maintenance phase due to clinical observation. Postoperative analgesia included 1g of paracetamol and 1g of metamizol intravenously, with a 6-hour interval between doses.

Results

Significant differences in the pain score in the periods of 2-6, 6-12, and 12-24 hours after anaesthesia between the groups were noticed (p < 0.001). Moreover, a significant difference in the frequency of nausea (p = 0.005) and vomiting (p = 0.04) between groups were presented. Nausea occurred in 54.05% of OA group, while in the LOA group, it occurred in a 23.08%. Vomiting occurred in 32.43% of control group, while in the study group, it occurred in 12.82% of patients.

Conclusion

The LOA protocol was more beneficial in reducing nausea and vomiting than the opioid-based method of anaesthesia. The LOA protocol of general anaesthesia during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and non-opioid postoperative analgesia have better outcomes in pain control, as well as nausea and vomiting, and improve postoperative patient comfort. The LOA protocol during anaesthesia and non-opioid postoperative analgesia should be considered in routine practice.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

Single-centre randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Tertiary hospital in Shanghai, China.

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTION

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

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2100050738.

Safety and effectiveness of opioid-free anaesthesia in thoracoscopic surgery: a preliminary retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to observe the effect of opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) on intraoperative haemodynamic,postoperative analgesia and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in thoracoscopic surgery in order to provide more evidence for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of OFA technology.

METHODS

This was a single-centre retrospective observational study.Adult patients who underwent thoracoscopic surgery with the preoperative thoracic paravertebral block between January 2017 and June 2020 were included.A cohort of 101 thoracoscopic surgery patients who received the OFA technique were matched with 101 thoracoscopic surgery patients who received standard opioid-containing anaesthesia(SOA). Heart rate (HR) and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) were measured before anaesthesia induction, immediately after endotracheal intubation, at the beginning of surgery, and 10, 20, and 30 min after surgery began.The total amount of intraoperative infusion, frequency of vasoactive drugs use, morphine ingested via the patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) 24 h post-surgery,visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at rest and activity on the first day post-surgery, and frequency of nausea and vomiting within 24 h post-surgery were analysed.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in intraoperative HR between the two groups (F = 0.889, P = 0.347); however, there was significant difference in intraoperative MAP (F = 16.709, P < 0.001), which was lower in SOA patients than in OFA patients. The frequency of vasoactive drug use and amount of infusion was less in OFA patients (P = 0.001). The consumption of morphine used by the PCIA 24 h post-surgery was significantly lower in OFA patients (OFA, 1.8 [0, 4.8] mg vs. SOA, 3.6 [0.6, 23] mg, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in VAS scores at rest (P = 0.745) or during activity (P = 0.792) on the first day post-surgery. There was also no statistically significant difference in nausea and vomiting within 24 h post-surgery (P = 0.651).

CONCLUSIONS

This case-control study demonstrated that compared with SOA, OFA can effectively maintain the stability of intraoperative MAP, reduce the incidence of hypotension. Although OFA reduced morphine consumption via the PCIA pump 24 h post-surgery, postoperative pain scores and nausea and vomiting within 24 h post-surgery were similar between the groups.But this study was only a preliminary study and needed to confirm in a larger, more robust trial.

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

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

Postoperative pain after different doses of remifentanil infusion during anaesthesia: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to explore the correlation between the different doses of remifentanil-based anaesthesia and postoperative pain in randomised trials.

METHODS

The electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane, clinical trial registries, and Google Scholar were searched up to November 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the dose dependent efficacy of remifentanil for postoperative pain intensity and hyperalgesia.

RESULTS

31 studies involving 2019 patients were included for analysis. Compared with the high remifentanil dose administration, patients in low doses showed less postoperative pain intensity at 1-2 h (weighted mean differences (WMD): 0.60, 95% CI, 0.05 to 1.15), 3-8 h (WMD: 0.38, 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.75), 24 h (WMD: 0.26, 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.48) and 48 h (WMD: 0.32, 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.55). Remifentanil-free regimen failed to decrease the pain score at 24 h (WMD: 0.10, 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.30) and 48 h (WMD: 0.15, 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.52) in comparison with remifentanil-based anaesthesia. After excluding trials with high heterogeneity, the dose of the remifentanil regimen was closely correlated with the postoperative pain score (P=0.03). In addition, the dose of the remifentanil regimen was not associated with the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (P=0.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis reveals that the low dose of remifentanil infusion is recommendable for general anaesthesia maintenance. No evidence suggests that remifentanil-free regimen has superiority in reducing postoperative pain. Moreover, remifentanil doesn't have a dose dependent effect in initiating PONV.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol of present study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022378360).

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].

Effects of opioid-free anaesthesia on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (OFA-PONV trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after general anaesthesia and is associated with morbidity and prolonged length of stay. Growing evidence suggest that opioid-free general anaesthesia (OFA) may reduce PONV in various surgical settings. We aim to evaluate the efficacy of OFA on the incidence of PONV compared with opioid-based anaesthesia among adults undergoing thoracoscopic surgery.

METHODS

This is a prospective, single-centre, randomised controlled trial comparing OFA and opioid-based anaesthesia for thoracoscopic surgery. A total of 168 adults will be randomised with a 1:1 ratio to receive either opioid-free anaesthesia or opioid-based anaesthesia. The primary outcome will be the incidence of PONV within 24 h after operation. The secondary outcomes will include the severity of PONV, quality of recovery, pain at rest, 6-min walking test, and health-related quality of life after operation.

DISCUSSION

The benefit-risk of OFA for patients after operation is contradictory in previous studies, so further study is required. This trial will focus on the effect of OFA on the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery. This trial adopts uniformed PONV and perioperative pain management, standardised randomised and blind, clear-cut inclusion and exclusion criteria, and standardised scales to assess the severity of PONV after surgery, the quality of postoperative recovery, and the health status at 6 months. The findings of this study will help to provide references to promote early recovery of patients after lung surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05411159. Registered on 9 June 2022.

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

STUDY OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

SETTING

Operating room, postoperative recovery room and ward.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing general anesthesia.

INTERVENTIONS

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

MEASUREMENTS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Outcomes for 41 260 pediatric surgical patients with opioid-free anesthesia: One center's experience

BACKGROUND

Opioid use is common and associated with side effects and risks. Consequently, analgesic strategies to reduce opioid utilization have been developed. Regional anesthesia and multimodal strategies are central tenets of enhanced recovery pathways and facilitate reduced perioperative opioid use. Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) protocols eliminate all intraoperative opioids, reserving opioids for postoperative rescue treatment. Systematic reviews show variable results for OFA.

METHODS

In a series of Quality Improvement (QI) projects, multidisciplinary teams developed interventions to test and spread OFA first in our ambulatory surgery center (ASC) and then in our hospital. Outcome measures were tracked using statistical process control charts to increase the adoption of OFA.

RESULTS

Between January 1, 2016, and September 30, 2022, 19 872 of 28 574 ASC patients received OFA, increasing from 30% to 98%. Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) maximum pain score, opioid-rescue rate, and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) treatment all decreased concomitantly. The use of OFA now represents our ambulatory standard practice. Over the same timeframe, the spread of this practice to our hospital led to 21 388 of 64 859 patients undergoing select procedures with OFA, increasing from 15% to 60%. Opioid rescue rate and PONV treatment in PACU decreased while hospital maximum pain scores and length of stay were stable. Two procedural examples with OFA benefits were identified. The use of OFA allowed relaxation of adenotonsillectomy admission criteria, resulting in 52 hospital patient days saved. Transition to OFA for laparoscopic appendectomy occurred concomitantly with a decrease in the mean hospital length of stay from 2.9 to 1.4 days, representing a savings of >500 hospital patient days/year.

CONCLUSIONS

These QI projects demonstrated that most pediatric ambulatory and select inpatient surgeries are amenable to OFA techniques which may reduce PONV without worsening pain.

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.

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

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

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.

Guidelines on perioperative optimization protocol for the adult patient 2023

OBJECTIVE

The French Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine [Société Française d'Anesthésie et de Réanimation (SFAR)] aimed at providing guidelines for the implementation of perioperative optimization programs.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 29 experts from the SFAR was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the outset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any industry funding. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence.

METHODS

Four fields were defined: 1) Generalities on perioperative optimization programs; 2) Preoperative measures; 3) Intraoperative measures and; 4) Postoperative measures. For each field, the objective of the recommendations was to answer a number of questions formulated according to the PICO model (population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes). Based on these questions, an extensive bibliographic search was carried out using predefined keywords according to PRISMA guidelines and analyzed using the GRADE® methodology. The recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE® methodology and then voted on by all the experts according to the GRADE grid method. As the GRADE® methodology could have been fully applied for the vast majority of questions, the recommendations were formulated using a "formalized expert recommendations" format.

RESULTS

The experts' work on synthesis and application of the GRADE® method resulted in 30 recommendations. Among the formalized recommendations, 19 were found to have a high level of evidence (GRADE 1±) and ten a low level of evidence (GRADE 2±). For one recommendation, the GRADE methodology could not be fully applied, resulting in an expert opinion. Two questions did not find any response in the literature. After two rounds of rating and several amendments, strong agreement was reached for all the recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong agreement among the experts was obtained to provide 30 recommendations for the elaboration and/or implementation of perioperative optimization programs in the highest number of surgical fields.

Effects of opioid-free total intravenous anesthesia on postoperative nausea and vomiting after treatments of lower extremity wounds: protocol for a randomized double-blind crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common after general anesthesia and surgery. This study aims to compare the effects of total intravenous opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) with conventional opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) on PONV in patients following treatments for wounds of lower extremities.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, crossover trial will include a total of 72 adult patients scheduled for at least two separate surgical treatments of lower extremity wounds under general anesthesia. Patients will be randomized to 1 of 2 anesthesia sequences of OFA and OBA. Patients in sequence 1 will receive OFA in the first treatment procedure and OBA in the second procedure, while patients in sequence 2 will receive the two anesthesia regimens in the reverse order. The washout period is at least 5 days. OFA will be delivered with intravenous esketamine, lidocaine, dexmedetomidine, and propofol. OBA will be delivered with intravenous sufentanil and propofol. The primary endpoint is the incidence of PONV within the first 48 h postoperatively. The secondary endpoints are the severity of PONV, antiemetic rescue therapy, postoperative pain scores, the worst pain, need for rescue analgesia, postoperative sedation, hypotension, bradycardia, hypertension, tachycardia, hypoxemia, psychotomimetic or dissociative effects, time to extubation, and length of postanesthesia care unit stay. Patients who complete two surgical procedures with designated anesthesia regimens will be included in the final analyses.

DISCUSSION

This crossover trial will determine whether total intravenous OFA reduces PONV in patients following treatments for lower extremity wounds. The results of this trial will also represent an important step to understand the benefits and possible risks of OFA in surgical patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200061511).

The effect of opioid-free anaesthesia on the quality of recovery after endoscopic sinus surgery: A multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

It remains to be determined whether opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) is consistently effective for different types of surgery.

OBJECTIVES

The current study hypothesised that OFA could effectively inhibit intraoperative nociceptive responses, reduce side effects associated with opioid use, and improve the quality of recovery (QoR) in endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS).

DESIGN

A multicentre randomised controlled study.

SETTING

Seven hospitals participated in this multicentre trial from May 2021 to December 2021.

PATIENTS

Of the 978 screened patients who were scheduled for elective ESS, 800 patients underwent randomisation, and 773 patients were included in the analysis; 388 patients in the OFA group and 385 patients in the opioid anaesthesia group.

INTERVENTIONS

The OFA group received balanced anaesthesia with dexmedetomidine, lidocaine, propofol and sevoflurane; the opioid anaesthesia group received opioid-based balanced anaesthesia using sufentanil, remifentanil, propofol and sevoflurane.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was 24-h postoperative QoR as evaluated by the Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire. The key secondary outcomes were episodes of postoperative pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

RESULTS

A significant difference (P = 0.0014) in the total score of 24-h postoperative Quality of Recovery-40 was found between the OFA group, median [interquartile range], 191 [185 to 196] and the opioid anaesthesia group (194 [187 to 197]). There were significant differences between the opioid anaesthesia group and the OFA group in the numerical rating scale score for pain after surgery at 30 min (P  = 0.0017), 1 h (P  = 0.0052), 2 h (P  = 0.0079) and 24 h (P = 0.0303). The difference in the area under the curve of pain scale scores between the OFA group (24.2 [3.0 to 47.5]) and the opioid anaesthesia group (11.5 [1.0 to 39.0]) was significant (P = 0.0042). PONV occurred in 58 of 385 patients (15.1%) in the opioid anaesthesia group compared with 27 of 388 patients (7.0%) in the OFA group, suggesting the incidence of PONV in the OFA group was significantly lower than in the opioid anaesthesia group (P  = 0.0021).

CONCLUSION

OFA can provide good intraoperative analgesia and postoperative recovery quality as effectively as conventional opioid anaesthesia in patients undergoing ESS. OFA can be an alternative option in the pain management of ESS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100046158; registry URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn/enIndex.aspx.).

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.

Opioid Reduced Anesthesia in Major Oncologic Cervicofacial Surgery: A Retrospective Study

Opioid sparing is one of the new challenges in anesthesia and perioperative medicine. Opioid reduced anesthesia (ORA) is part of this approach, and it consists of a multimodal analgesia-associating non-opioid analgesic regional anesthesia to reduce intraoperative opioid requirements. Major cervicofacial oncologic surgery could specifically benefit from ORA, since it is known to generate intense and prolonged postoperative pain, with a high risk of pulmonary complications.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case-controlled study of 172 patients with major cervicofacial oncologic surgery. Group ORA (dexmedetomidine and lidocaine), n = 86, was compared to patients treated with standard opioid based anesthesia, Group control, n = 86. The main endpoint was to study perioperative opioid consumption and postoperative pain scores, and the secondary endpoint was to observe opioid related side effects.

RESULTS

The ORA group received 6.2 ± 3.1 mg morphine titration at the end of surgery, while the control group received 10.1 ± 3.7 mg p < 0.0001; there was no significant difference in post-operative analgesia requirements and pain scores between the groups. Intraoperatively, the ORA protocol yielded bradycardia in 4 persons, while in the control group, only 2 persons had bradycardia necessitating intervention, p < 0.05. Postoperatively, episodes of hypoxemia (50%) and the need for additional pressure-assisted ventilation (6%), was significantly different in the ORA group than in the control group (70% and 19%), p < 0.05. There was no difference between the two groups for the incidence of nausea and vomiting, ileus, or postoperative delirium.

DISCUSSION

ORA was not associated with a decrease in postoperative pain and opioid requirement, but possibly reduced the incidence of hypoxemia and the use of additional pressure-assisted ventilation, although we cannot rule out confounding factors. The possible benefits of ORA remain to be demonstrated by prospective studies.

Opioid-free anesthesia for postoperative recovery after video-assisted thoracic surgery: A prospective, randomized controlled trial

Purpose

Opioid-based anesthesia is a traditional form of anesthesia that has a significant analgesic effect; however, it can cause nausea, vomiting, delirium, and other side effects. Opioid-free anesthesia with dexmedetomidine and lidocaine has attracted widespread attention. This study aimed to compare the effects of opioid-free and opioid-based anesthesia (OFA and OBA, respectively) on postoperative recovery in patients who had undergone video-assisted thoracic surgery.

Methods

Eighty patients undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery were assigned to receive either opioid-free anesthesia (OFA group) or opioid-based anesthesia (OBA group) according to random grouping. The primary outcome of the study was the quality of recovery-40 scores (QoR-40) 24 h postoperatively. The secondary outcome measure was numerical rating scale (NRS) scores at different times 48 h postoperatively. In addition to these measurements, other related parameters were recorded.

Results

Patients who received opioid-free anesthesia had higher QoR-40 scores (169.1 ± 5.1 vs. 166.8 ± 4.4, p = 0.034), and the differences were mainly reflected in their comfort and emotional state; however, the difference between the two groups was less than the minimal clinically important difference of 6.3. We also found that the NRS scores were lower in the OFA group than in the OBA group at 0.5 h (both p < 0.05) and 1 h (both p < 0.05) postoperatively and the cumulative 0-24 h postoperative dosage of sufentanil in the OBA group was higher than that in the OFA group (p = 0.030). There were no significant differences in postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (p = 0.159). No surgical or block complications were observed between the groups.

Conclusion

Opioid-free analgesia potentially increased the postoperative recovery in patients who underwent video-assisted thoracic surgery.

Trial registration

The study protocol was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Register under the number ChiCTR2100045344 (http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=125033) on April 13, 2021.

Effects of Dexmedetomidine on Systemic Inflammation and Postoperative Complications in Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Double-blind Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) may induce intense inflammatory response which might be related to the patient's outcomes. Clinical dexmedetomidine (DEX) has been widely used for opioid-sparing anesthesia and satisfactory sedation. The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of DEX on inflammatory response and postoperative complications in LPD.

METHODS

Ninety-nine patients undergoing LPD were randomly assigned to two groups: normal saline (NS) and DEX. The primary outcome was the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) differences postoperatively within 48 h. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, the length of postoperative hospital stay and the incidence of ICU admission. Other outcomes included anesthetics consumption and intraoperative vital signs.

RESULTS

NLR at postoperative day 2 to baseline ratio decreased significantly in the DEX group (P = 0.032). Less major complications were observed in the DEX group such as pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying and intra-abdominal infection (NS vs. DEX, 21.7% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.315; 10.9% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.226; 17.4% vs. 11.4%, P = 0.416, respectively) though there were no statistical differences. Three patients were transferred to the ICU after surgery in the NS group, while there was none in the DEX group (P = 0.242). The median postoperative hospital stay between groups were similar (P = 0.313). Both intraoperative propofol and opioids were less in the DEX group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative DEX reduced the early postoperative inflammatory response in LPD. It also reduced the use of narcotics that may related to reduced major complications, which need additional research further.

Opioid-Free Anesthesia and Postoperative Outcomes in Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Surgery is an essential component of the treatment of solid tumors, but the perioperative course can be complicated by different factors (including anesthesia). Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) may mitigate adverse outcomes of opioid-based anesthesia (OBA), but major questions remain on the actual impact in terms of analgesia and the improvement of surgical outcomes. To address this issue, we present a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy of OFA compared to OBA in the specific subset of cancer patients undergoing surgery.

METHODS

following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), we searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane CENTRAL Library to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on adults undergoing oncological surgery, comparing OFA and OBA up to March 2022. Additional papers were added from the reference lists of identified sources. Papers were manually reviewed by two independent authors to ascertain eligibility and subsequent inclusion in qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

only two studies were eligible according to inclusion criteria. It was not possible to perform any meta-analysis. The two studies included patients undergoing prostate and gynecologic surgery on 177 patients, with significant heterogeneity in the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

randomized controlled trial specifically addressed to cancer patients are lacking. A knowledge gap exists, neither confirming nor rejecting the capacity of OFA to improve early postoperative outcomes in cancer surgery. Long-term consequences on specific oncological outcomes are far from being elucidated. We expect a growing body of literature in the coming years. Further studies are required with homogeneous methodology and endpoints.

Opioid Free Anesthesia in Thoracic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis

Introduction: Recent studies showed that balanced opioid-free anesthesia is feasible and desirable in several surgical settings. However, in thoracic surgery, scientific evidence is still lacking. Thus, we conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis of opioid-free anesthesia in this field. Methods: The primary outcome was the occurrence of any complication. Secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay, recovery room length of stay, postoperative pain at 24 and 48 h, and morphine equivalent consumption at 48 h. Results: Out of 375 potentially relevant articles, 6 studies (1 randomized controlled trial and 5 observational cohort studies) counting a total of 904 patients were included. Opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid-based anesthesia, was associated with a lower rate of any complication (74 of 175 [42%] vs. 200 of 294 [68%]; RR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65−0.89; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), lower 48 h morphine equivalent consumption (MD −14.5 [−29.17/−0.22]; p = 0.05; I2 = 95%) and lower pain at 48 h (MD −1.95 [−3.6/0.3]; p = 0.02, I = 98%). Conclusions: Opioid-free anesthesia in thoracic surgery is associated with lower postoperative complications, and less opioid demand with better postoperative analgesia at 48 h compared to opioid-based anesthesia.

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

Purpose

Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is an emerging technique that eliminates intraoperative use of opioids and is associated with lower postoperative opioid consumption and reduced adverse postoperative events. The present study investigated the effect of OFA on the quality of recovery in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy.

Patients and Methods

Seventy-five adult patients undergoing elective gynecological laparoscopy were randomly assigned to the OFA group with dexmedetomidine and lidocaine or the remifentanil-based anesthesia (RA) group with remifentanil. Patients, surgeons, and medical staff members providing postoperative care and assessing outcomes were blinded to group allocation. The anesthesiologist performing general anesthesia could not be blinded due to the different drug administration protocols by groups. The primary outcome was the quality of recovery measured using the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain score, intraoperative and postoperative adverse events, and stress hormones levels.

Results

The patients in both groups had comparable baseline characteristics. The QoR-40 score on postoperative day 1 was significantly higher in the OFA group than in the RA group (155.9 ± 21.2 in the RA group vs 166.9 ± 17.8 in the OFA group; mean difference: −11.0, 95% confidence interval: −20.0, −2.0; p = 0.018). The visual analog scale score at 30 min after surgery was significantly lower in the OFA group than in the RA group (6.3 ± 2.3 in the RA group vs 4.1 ± 2.1 in the OFA group; p < 0.001). The incidences of nausea and shivering in the post-anesthetic care unit were also significantly lower in the OFA group (p = 0.014 and 0.025; respectively). Epinephrine levels were significantly lower in the OFA group (p = 0.002).

Conclusion

OFA significantly improved the quality of recovery in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy.

An Opioid-Sparing Strategy for Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Matched Case-Controlled Study in China

Background: Opioid-sparing anesthesia may enhance postoperative recovery by reducing opioid-related side effects. The present study was to evaluate the effect of an opioid-sparing strategy in bariatric surgery.

Methods: This study was conducted as a retrospective matched case-controlled (1:1) study. A total of 44 patients receiving either an opioid-based approach (OBA group) or an opioid-sparing strategy (OSA group) who under laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy were included between May 2017 and October 2020. The primary outcome was the postoperative hospital length of stay (PLOS). Secondary outcomes were the hospital costs, operative opioid consumption, time to recovery, postoperative pain score at rest and rescue antiemetic administered in the PACU.

Results: The clinical demographic and operative data in both groups were comparable. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the PLOS (OSA vs. OBA: 6.18 ± 0.23 days vs. 6.73 ± 0.39 days, p = 0.24). Compared to the OBA group, opioid consumption in the OSA group was significantly decreased (48.79 ± 4.85 OMEs vs. 10.57 ± 0.77 OMEs, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the hospital costs, time to recovery, and rescue antiemetic administered, the incidence of intravenous opioids and vasopressor use in the PACU.

Conclusion: The opioid-sparing anesthesia for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy was feasible but did not decrease the PLOS.

Current Issues in the Use of Opioids for the Management of Postoperative Pain: A Review

Importance

Uncontrolled and indiscriminate prescribing of opioids has led to an opioid crisis that started in North America and spread throughout high-income countries. The aim of this narrative review was to explore some of the current issues surrounding the use of opioids in the perioperative period, focusing on drivers that led to escalation of use, patient harms, the move away from using self-reported pain scores alone to assess adequacy of analgesia, concerns about the routine use of controlled-release opioids for the management of acute pain, opioid-free anesthesia and analgesia, and prescription of opioids on discharge from hospital.

Observations

The origins of the opioid crisis are multifactorial and may include good intentions to keep patients pain free in the postoperative period. Assessment of patient function may be better than unidimensional numerical pain scores to help guide postoperative analgesia. Immediate-release opioids can be titrated more easily to match analgesic requirements. There is currently no good evidence to show that opioid-free anesthesia and analgesia affects opioid prescribing practices or the risk of persistent postoperative opioid use. Attention should be paid to discharge opioid prescribing as repeat and refill prescriptions are risk-factors for persistent postoperative opioid use. Opioid stewardship is paramount, and many governments are passing legislation, while statutory bodies and professional societies are providing advice and guidance to help mitigate the harm caused by opioids.

Conclusions and Relevance

Opioids remain a crucial part of many patients' journey from surgery to full recovery. The last few decades have shown that unfettered opioid use puts patients and societies at risk, so caution is needed to mitigate those dangers. Opioid stewardship provides a multilayered structure to allow continued safe use of opioids as part of broad pain management strategies for those patients who benefit from them most.

The effect of opioid-free anesthesia protocol on the early quality of recovery after major surgery (SOFA trial): study protocol for a prospective, monocentric, randomized, single-blinded trial

Background

Since the 2000s, opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) protocols have been spreading worldwide in anesthesia daily practice. These protocols avoid using opioid drugs during anesthesia to prevent short- and long-term opioid side effects while ensuring adequate analgesic control and optimizing postoperative recovery. Proofs of the effect of OFA protocol on optimizing postoperative recovery are still scarce. The study aims to compare the effects of an OFA protocol versus standard anesthesia protocol on the early quality of postoperative recovery (QoR) from major surgeries.

Methods

The SOFA trial is a prospective, randomized, parallel, single-blind, monocentric study. Patients (n = 140) scheduled for major plastic, visceral, urologic, gynecologic, or ear, nose, and throat (ENT) surgeries will be allocated to one of the two groups. The study group (OFA group) will receive a combination of clonidine, magnesium sulfate, ketamine, and lidocaine. The control group will receive a standard anesthesia protocol based on opioid use. Both groups will receive others standard practices for general anesthesia and perioperative care. The primary outcome measure is the QoR-15 value assessed at 24 h after surgery. Postoperative data such as pain intensity, the incidence of postoperative complication, and opioid consumption will be recorded. We will also collect adverse events that may be related to the anesthetic protocol. Three months after surgery, the incidence of chronic pain and the quality of life will be evaluated by phone interview.

Discussion

This will be the first study powered to evaluate the effect of OFA versus a standard anesthesia protocol using opioids on global postoperative recovery after a wide range of major surgeries. The SOFA trial will also provide findings concerning the OFA impact on chronic pain incidence and long-term patient quality of life.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04797312. Registered on 15 March 2021

Opioid-free anesthesia versus opioid-inclusive anesthesia for breast cancer surgery: a retrospective study

Background

Breast cancer surgery is usually managed using opioid-inclusive anesthesia (OIA), although opioids are associated with several adverse events, including nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Multimodal opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) has been introduced to reduce the incidence of these side effects. In this single-center retrospective study, we investigated whether ketamine, combined with magnesium and clonidine, could effectively control postoperative pain in patients undergoing quadrantectomy, while reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

Results

A total of 89 patients submitted to quadrantectomy were included and divided into an OFA group (38 patients) and an OIA group (51 patients) according to the received anesthetic technique. Analgesia in the OIA group was based on an intraoperative infusion of remifentanil, and analgesia in the OFA consisted of an intraoperative infusion of ketamine and magnesium sulfate. Postoperative pain in both groups was managed with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and paracetamol. Postoperative pain, assessed with the numeric rating scale (NRS), requirements for additional analgesics, the incidence of PONV, and patient satisfaction evaluated using a QoR-40 questionnaire were compared between the two groups. Levels of pain at 30 min and 6, 12, and 24 h after surgery; number of paracetamol rescue doses; and the incidence of PONV were lower in the OFA group (p <0.05). Patient satisfaction was comparable in the two groups.

Conclusions

A combination of ketamine, magnesium, and clonidine could be more effective than opioid-based analgesia in reducing postoperative pain and lowering PONV occurrence after quadrantectomy for breast cancer.