A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial Evaluating Opioid-Free versus Opioid-Sparing Analgesia for Orbital Fracture Reconstruction Under General Anesthesia.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of Pain Research Pub Date : 2024-11-11 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/JPR.S491994
Rui Zhang, Yongjian Mai, Huijing Ye, Xiufen Lian, Huasheng Yang, Yanling Zhu, Xiaoliang Gan
{"title":"A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial Evaluating Opioid-Free versus Opioid-Sparing Analgesia for Orbital Fracture Reconstruction Under General Anesthesia.","authors":"Rui Zhang, Yongjian Mai, Huijing Ye, Xiufen Lian, Huasheng Yang, Yanling Zhu, Xiaoliang Gan","doi":"10.2147/JPR.S491994","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Opioid-minimizing strategies are making their appearance in enhanced recovery after surgery. This study is aimed to explore the potential advantages of opioid-free analgesia (OFA) compared to opioid-sparing analgesia (OSA) in patients undergoing orbital fracture reconstruction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective, single-center, randomized controlled study, we randomly recruited 122 patients undergoing orbital fracture reconstruction under general anesthesia. Patients received total intravenous anesthesia with a flexible laryngeal mask airway, and multimodal analgesia with either OSA or OFA methods. The OSA group (n = 61) received low doses of fentanyl and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and the OFA group (n = 61) received medial canthus peribulbar block (MCPB) combined with NSAIDs. The primary outcomes consisted of area-under-the-curve (AUC) of the numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score, and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) through the first 24h.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to the OSA group, the OFA group demonstrated non-inferiority in postoperative analgesia through the first 24 postoperative hours (difference of the medians, -6; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 6), but failed to meet the non-inferiority criterion in the incidence of PONV (difference ratio, 3%; 95% CI, -7% to 14%). The Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire (QoR-40) scores on postoperative day 1 was significantly higher in group OFA compared to group OSA (188 [178 to 196] vs 181 [169 to 191], respectively; <i>P</i> = 0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In orbital fracture reconstruction, both OFA and OSA strategies provide effective postoperative pain relief, but OFA using MCPB combined NSAIDs enhances the quality of early postoperative recovery.</p><p><strong>Registered: </strong>Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1900028088.</p>","PeriodicalId":16661,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain Research","volume":"17 ","pages":"3707-3717"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566577/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S491994","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Opioid-minimizing strategies are making their appearance in enhanced recovery after surgery. This study is aimed to explore the potential advantages of opioid-free analgesia (OFA) compared to opioid-sparing analgesia (OSA) in patients undergoing orbital fracture reconstruction.

Methods: In this prospective, single-center, randomized controlled study, we randomly recruited 122 patients undergoing orbital fracture reconstruction under general anesthesia. Patients received total intravenous anesthesia with a flexible laryngeal mask airway, and multimodal analgesia with either OSA or OFA methods. The OSA group (n = 61) received low doses of fentanyl and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and the OFA group (n = 61) received medial canthus peribulbar block (MCPB) combined with NSAIDs. The primary outcomes consisted of area-under-the-curve (AUC) of the numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score, and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) through the first 24h.

Results: Compared to the OSA group, the OFA group demonstrated non-inferiority in postoperative analgesia through the first 24 postoperative hours (difference of the medians, -6; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 6), but failed to meet the non-inferiority criterion in the incidence of PONV (difference ratio, 3%; 95% CI, -7% to 14%). The Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire (QoR-40) scores on postoperative day 1 was significantly higher in group OFA compared to group OSA (188 [178 to 196] vs 181 [169 to 191], respectively; P = 0.005).

Conclusion: In orbital fracture reconstruction, both OFA and OSA strategies provide effective postoperative pain relief, but OFA using MCPB combined NSAIDs enhances the quality of early postoperative recovery.

Registered: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1900028088.

一项随机对照非劣效性试验,评估了全身麻醉下眼眶骨折再造术中无阿片镇痛与阿片稀释镇痛的效果。
背景和目的:阿片类药物最小化策略在促进术后恢复方面正崭露头角。本研究旨在探讨在接受眼眶骨折重建术的患者中,无阿片镇痛(OFA)与阿片保留镇痛(OSA)相比的潜在优势:在这项前瞻性、单中心、随机对照研究中,我们随机招募了122名在全身麻醉下接受眼眶骨折重建术的患者。患者接受全静脉麻醉,使用柔性喉罩通气道,并采用 OSA 或 OFA 方法进行多模式镇痛。OSA 组(61 人)接受低剂量芬太尼和非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs),OFA 组(61 人)接受内侧冠周阻滞(MCPB)和非甾体抗炎药。主要结果包括数字评分量表(NRS)疼痛评分的曲线下面积(AUC)以及术后24小时内恶心和呕吐(PONV)的发生率:与 OSA 组相比,OFA 组在术后头 24 小时内的镇痛效果无劣势(中位数之差为 -6;95% 置信区间 [CI],-12 至 6),但在 PONV 发生率方面未达到无劣势标准(差异比为 3%;95% 置信区间,-7% 至 14%)。OFA组与OSA组相比,术后第1天的恢复质量-40问卷(QoR-40)评分明显更高(分别为188[178至196] vs 181 [169至191];P = 0.005):结论:在眼眶骨折重建中,OFA和OSA两种策略都能有效缓解术后疼痛,但使用MCPB联合非甾体抗炎药的OFA能提高术后早期恢复的质量:中国临床试验注册中心 ChiCTR1900028088。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Pain Research
Journal of Pain Research CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
411
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Pain Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that welcomes laboratory and clinical findings in the fields of pain research and the prevention and management of pain. Original research, reviews, symposium reports, hypothesis formation and commentaries are all considered for publication. Additionally, the journal now welcomes the submission of pain-policy-related editorials and commentaries, particularly in regard to ethical, regulatory, forensic, and other legal issues in pain medicine, and to the education of pain practitioners and researchers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信