Evaluation of Quality of Recovery With Quality of Recovery-15 Score After Closed-Loop Anesthesia Delivery System-Guided Propofol Versus Desflurane General Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Transabdominal Robotic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Robotic technique of surgery allows surgeons to perform complex procedures in difficult-to-access areas of the abdominal/pelvic cavity (eg, radical prostatectomy and radical hysterectomy) with improved access and precision approach. At the same time, automated techniques efficiently deliver propofol total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with lower anesthetic consumption. As both above are likely to bring benefit to the patients, it is imperative to explore their effect on postanesthesia recovery. Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) is a comprehensive patient-reported measure of the quality of postanesthesia recovery and assesses compendious patients' experiences (physical and mental well-being). This randomized study assessed the effect of automated propofol TIVA versus inhaled desflurane anesthesia on postoperative quality of recovery using the QoR-15 questionnaire in patients undergoing elective robotic surgery. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients undergoing robotic abdominal surgery under general anesthesia (GA) were randomly allocated to receive propofol TIVA administered by closed-loop anesthesia delivery system (CLADS) (CLADS group) or desflurane GA (desflurane group). Postoperative QoR-15 score on postoperative day 1 (POD-1) and postoperative day 2 (POD-2) (primary outcome variables), individual QoR-15 item scores (15 nos.), intraoperative hemodynamics (heart rate, mean blood pressure), anesthesia depth consistency, anesthesia delivery system performance, early recovery from anesthesia (time-to-eye-opening, and time to tracheal extubation), and postoperative adverse events (sedation, postoperative nausea and vomiting [PONV], pain, intraoperative awareness recall) (secondary outcome variables) were analyzed. RESULTS: On POD-1, the CLADS group scored significantly higher than the desflurane group in terms of "overall" QoR-15 score (QoR-15 score: 114.5 ± 13 vs 102.1 ± 20.4; P = .001) and 3 individual QoR-15 "items" scores ("feeling rested" 7.5 ± 1.9 vs 6.4 ± 2.2, P = .007; "good sleep" 7.8 ± 1.9 vs 6.6 ± 2.7, P = .027; and "feeling comfortable and in control" 8.1 ± 1.7 vs 6.9 ± 2.4, P = .006). On the POD-2, the CLADS group significantly outscored the desflurane group with respect to the "overall" QoR-15 score (126.0 ± 13.6 vs 116.3 ± 20.3; P = .011) and on "5" individual QoR-15 items ("feeling rested" 8.1 ± 1.4 vs 7.0 ± 2.0, P = .003; "able to return to work or usual home activities" 6.0 ± 2.2 vs 4.6 ± 2.6, P = .008; "feeling comfortable and in control" 8.6 ± 1.2 vs 7.7 ± 1.9, P = .004; "feeling of general well-being" 7.8 ± 1.6 vs 6.9 ± 2.0, P = .042; and "severe pain" 9.0 ± 1.9 vs 8.1 ± 2.5, P = .042). CONCLUSIONS: Automated propofol TIVA administered by CLADS is superior to desflurane inhalation GA with respect to early postoperative recovery as comprehensively assessed on the QoR-15 scoring system. The effect of combined automated precision anesthesia and surgery (robotics) techniques on postoperative recovery may be explored further.

Evaluation of Automated Delivery of Propofol Using a Closed-Loop Anesthesia Delivery System in Patients Undergoing Thoracic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Study.

OBJECTIVE: Automated propofol total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) administered by a closed-loop anesthesia delivery system (CLADS) exhibits greater efficiency than conventional manual methods, but its use in major thoracic surgery is limited. DESIGN: Prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled study. SETTING: Single-center tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing thoracic surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to receive CLADS-driven (CLADS group) or manually controlled (manual group) propofol TIVA. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Anesthesia depth consistency (primary objective) and anesthesia delivery performance, propofol usage, work ergonomics, intraoperative hemodynamics, and recovery profile (secondary objectives) were analyzed. No differences were found for anesthesia depth consistency (percentage of time the bispectral index was within ± 10 of target) (CLADS group: 82.5% [78.5%-87.2%] v manual group: 86.5% [74.2%-92.5%]; p = 0.581) and delivery performance, including median performance error (CLADS group: 3 [-4 to 6] v manual group: 1 [-2.5 to 6]); median absolute performance error (CLADS group: 10 [10-12] v manual group:10 [8-12]); wobble (CLADS group: 10 [8-12] v manual group: 9 [6-10.5]); and global score (CLADS group: 24.2 [21.2-29.3] v manual group: 22.1 [17.3-32.3]) (p > 0.05). However, propofol requirements were significantly lower in the CLADS group for induction (CLADS group: 1.27 ± 0.21] mg/kg v manual group: 1.78 ± 0.51 mg/kg; p = 0.014) and maintenance (CLADS group: 4.02 ± 0.99 mg/kg/h v manual group: 5.11 ± 1.40 mg/kg/h; p = 0.025) of TIVA. Ergonomically, CLADS-driven TIVA was found to be significantly superior to manual control (infusion adjustment frequency/h) (manual infusion: 9.6 [7.8-14.9] v CLADS delivery [none]). CONCLUSIONS: In thoracic surgery patients, CLADS-automated propofol TIVA confers significant ergonomic advantage along with lower propofol usage.