Miaomiao Xiong, Yao Liu, Yingsi Liang, Hailang Wang, Lili Zhang, Zhongjun Zhang, Ming Fang
{"title":"无阿片类药物与保留阿片类药物麻醉对腹腔镜胆囊切除术后疼痛和早期恢复的影响:一项随机对照试验。","authors":"Miaomiao Xiong, Yao Liu, Yingsi Liang, Hailang Wang, Lili Zhang, Zhongjun Zhang, Ming Fang","doi":"10.2147/JPR.S506147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Enhanced recovery after surgery emphasizes effective analgesia while minimal opioid use. Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) and opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA) have been shown to enhance recovery by reducing opioid-induced side effects. This study compared the efficacy of OFA and OSA in managing postoperative pain and recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A single-center, randomized controlled trial was conducted with 86 adults undergoing LC. Patients received either OSA (sufentanil/remifentanil) or OFA (no opioids). Both groups received propofol, esketamine, dexmedetomidine, and erector spinae plane block. The primary outcome was pain area under the curve (AUCVAS) within 36 hours postsurgery. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamics, recovery times and bowel function.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-one patients (41 and 40 in the OFA and OSA groups, respectively) completed the study. The AUCVAS scores were similar between the OFA (7.3 ± 1.4) and OSA (6.9 ± 1.3) groups (P = 0.201), the difference in AUCVAS between the two groups was 0.384 (95% CI: -0.296, 1.064), which was significantly below the preset noninferiority threshold of 1.0, demonstrating the noninferiority of OFA. While early pain scores within the first 12 hours postanesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge were slightly higher in the OFA group, but overall pain control was sufficient in both groups. The VAS scores from PACU discharge to 36 hours postoperatively, intraoperative hemodynamic variables, and the need for rescue analgesia were comparable. OFA patients experienced a faster bowel recovery (13.8 ± 2.4 vs 15.5 ± 2.3 hours, P = 0.002). Recovery times, postoperative QoR-40 scores, and patient satisfaction were similar between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>OFA is noninferior to OSA in pain management and hemodynamic stability, with faster bowel recovery after LC.</p>","PeriodicalId":16661,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain Research","volume":"18 ","pages":"2137-2146"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12035407/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Opioid-Free versus Opioid-Sparing Anesthesia for Postoperative Pain and Early Recovery After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Miaomiao Xiong, Yao Liu, Yingsi Liang, Hailang Wang, Lili Zhang, Zhongjun Zhang, Ming Fang\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/JPR.S506147\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Enhanced recovery after surgery emphasizes effective analgesia while minimal opioid use. Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) and opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA) have been shown to enhance recovery by reducing opioid-induced side effects. This study compared the efficacy of OFA and OSA in managing postoperative pain and recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A single-center, randomized controlled trial was conducted with 86 adults undergoing LC. Patients received either OSA (sufentanil/remifentanil) or OFA (no opioids). Both groups received propofol, esketamine, dexmedetomidine, and erector spinae plane block. The primary outcome was pain area under the curve (AUCVAS) within 36 hours postsurgery. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamics, recovery times and bowel function.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-one patients (41 and 40 in the OFA and OSA groups, respectively) completed the study. The AUCVAS scores were similar between the OFA (7.3 ± 1.4) and OSA (6.9 ± 1.3) groups (P = 0.201), the difference in AUCVAS between the two groups was 0.384 (95% CI: -0.296, 1.064), which was significantly below the preset noninferiority threshold of 1.0, demonstrating the noninferiority of OFA. While early pain scores within the first 12 hours postanesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge were slightly higher in the OFA group, but overall pain control was sufficient in both groups. The VAS scores from PACU discharge to 36 hours postoperatively, intraoperative hemodynamic variables, and the need for rescue analgesia were comparable. OFA patients experienced a faster bowel recovery (13.8 ± 2.4 vs 15.5 ± 2.3 hours, P = 0.002). Recovery times, postoperative QoR-40 scores, and patient satisfaction were similar between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>OFA is noninferior to OSA in pain management and hemodynamic stability, with faster bowel recovery after LC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16661,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pain Research\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"2137-2146\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12035407/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pain Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S506147\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S506147","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Opioid-Free versus Opioid-Sparing Anesthesia for Postoperative Pain and Early Recovery After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Purpose: Enhanced recovery after surgery emphasizes effective analgesia while minimal opioid use. Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) and opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA) have been shown to enhance recovery by reducing opioid-induced side effects. This study compared the efficacy of OFA and OSA in managing postoperative pain and recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).
Patients and methods: A single-center, randomized controlled trial was conducted with 86 adults undergoing LC. Patients received either OSA (sufentanil/remifentanil) or OFA (no opioids). Both groups received propofol, esketamine, dexmedetomidine, and erector spinae plane block. The primary outcome was pain area under the curve (AUCVAS) within 36 hours postsurgery. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamics, recovery times and bowel function.
Results: Eighty-one patients (41 and 40 in the OFA and OSA groups, respectively) completed the study. The AUCVAS scores were similar between the OFA (7.3 ± 1.4) and OSA (6.9 ± 1.3) groups (P = 0.201), the difference in AUCVAS between the two groups was 0.384 (95% CI: -0.296, 1.064), which was significantly below the preset noninferiority threshold of 1.0, demonstrating the noninferiority of OFA. While early pain scores within the first 12 hours postanesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge were slightly higher in the OFA group, but overall pain control was sufficient in both groups. The VAS scores from PACU discharge to 36 hours postoperatively, intraoperative hemodynamic variables, and the need for rescue analgesia were comparable. OFA patients experienced a faster bowel recovery (13.8 ± 2.4 vs 15.5 ± 2.3 hours, P = 0.002). Recovery times, postoperative QoR-40 scores, and patient satisfaction were similar between the groups.
Conclusion: OFA is noninferior to OSA in pain management and hemodynamic stability, with faster bowel recovery after LC.
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.