Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Opioid-Free Anesthesia and Postoperative Outcomes in Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review.
Bugada, Dario; Drotar, Megan; Finazzi, Simone; Real, Giovanni; Lorini, Luca F; Forget, Patrice.
Afiliação
  • Bugada D; Emergency and Intensive Care Department, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, 24127 Bergamo, Italy.
  • Drotar M; School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK.
  • Finazzi S; Department of Health Sciences, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy.
  • Real G; Department of Health Sciences, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy.
  • Lorini LF; Emergency and Intensive Care Department, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, 24127 Bergamo, Italy.
  • Forget P; Epidemiology Group, Department of Anaesthesia, NHS Grampian, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK.
Cancers (Basel) ; 15(1)2022 Dec 22.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36612060
ABSTRACT

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.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Cancers (Basel) Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Itália

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Cancers (Basel) Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Itália