Opioid-free anesthesia with esketamine-dexmedetomidine versus opioid-based anesthesia with propofol-remifentanil in shoulder arthroscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: OFA (Opioid-free anesthesia) has the potential to reduce the occurrence of opioid-related adverse events and enhance postoperative recovery. Our research aimed to investigate whether OFA, combining esketamine and dexmedetomidine, could serve as an alternative protocol to traditional OBA (opioid-based anesthesia) in shoulder arthroscopy, particularly in terms of reducing PONV (postoperative nausea and vomiting). METHODS: A total of 60 patients treated with shoulder arthroscopy from September 2021 to September 2022 were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to the OBA group (n = 30) and OFA group (n = 30), receiving propofol-remifentanil TIVA (total intravenous anesthesia) and esketamine-dexmedetomidine intravenous anesthesia, respectively. Both groups received ultrasound-guided ISBPB(interscalene brachial plexus block)for postoperative analgesia. RESULTS: The incidence of PONV on the first postoperative day in the ward (13.3% vs. 40%, P < 0.05) was significantly lower in the OFA group than in the OBA group. Moreover, the severity of PONV was less severe in the OFA group than in the OBA group in PACU (post-anesthesia care unit) (0 [0, 0] vs. 0 [0, 3], P<0.05 ) and in the ward 24 h postoperatively ( 0 [0, 0] vs. 0 [0, 2.25], P<0.05). Additionally, the OFA group experienced a significantly shorter length of stay in the PACU compared to the OBA group (39.4 ± 6.76 min vs. 48.7 ± 7.90 min, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the OBA with propofol-remifentanil, the OFA with esketamine- dexmedetomidine proved to be feasible for shoulder arthroscopy, resulting in a reduced incidence of PONV and a shorter duration of stay in the PACU. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No: ChiCTR2100047355), 12/06/2021.

Comparison of analgesia nociception index, surgical pleth index and hemodynamic parameters between patients receiving fentanyl versus dexmedetomidine analgesia for supratentorial craniotomy - an open label active-controlled randomized trial.

Dexmedetomidine decreases heart rate (HR) and increases high frequency (HF) component of HR variability (HRV). Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) measures nociception by analyzing the influence of respiration on HF component of HRV while surgical pleth index (SPI) derives this information from photoplethymographic signals of finger arterioles. Therefore, during administration of dexmedetomidine, reliability of ANI may vary. This study compared the changes in ANI, SPI and hemodynamics (HR and mean arterial pressure [MAP]) during various noxious stimuli with fentanyl and dexmedetomidine intraoperative analgesia. In this trial, patients undergoing elective supratentorial surgery under general anesthesia were randomized to receive either fentanyl or dexmedetomidine infusion for intraoperative analgesia. ANI (instantaneous and mean), SPI, HR and MAP were compared before and after noxious stimuli (intubation, skull pin insertion, skin incision and craniotomy) with respect to magnitude of maximum change in the variable and the time taken for the maximal change (defined as response time) between the groups. A total of 58 patients, 29 in each group were recruited into the study. At intubation, SPI changed significantly more in the fentanyl group compared to dexmedetomidine group (37 versus 20 units, p = 0.007). At skull pinning, ANI values (both instantaneous and mean) changed more in dexmedetomidine group (p = 0.024 and 0.009) with significantly longer response time (p = 0.039). There was no difference between the groups with respect to any of the variables at skin incision and craniotomy. ANI during use of dexmedetomidine and SPI while using fentanyl, might be the better choices as intraoperative nociception monitors.

Mapping Theme Trends and Research Frontiers in Dexmedetomidine Over Past Decade: A Bibliometric Analysis.

Background: Dexmedetomidine, an α2-adrenergic receptor (α2-AR) agonist, is extensively used in clinical and animal studies owing to its sedative, analgesic, and anxiolytic effects. The diverse range of research domains associated with dexmedetomidine poses challenges in defining pivotal research directions. Therefore, this study aimed to conduct a qualitative and quantitative bibliometric study in the field of dexmedetomidine over the past decade to establish current research trends and emerging frontiers. Methods: Relevant publications in the field of dexmedetomidine between 2014 and 2023 were extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection database. The bibliometric analysis, incorporating statistical and visual analyses, was conducted using CiteSpace (6.1.R6) and R (4.3.1). Results: The present study encompassed a total of 5,482 publications, exhibiting a consistent upward trend over the past decade. The United States and its institutions had the highest centrality. Ji, Fuhai, and Ebert, Thomas J. were identified as the most productive author and the most cited author, respectively. As anticipated, the most cited journal was Anesthesiology. Moreover, cluster analysis of cited references and co-occurrence of keywords revealed that recent studies were primarily focused on sedation, delirium, and opioid-free anesthesia. Finally, a timeline view of keywords clusters and keywords burst demonstrated that primary research frontiers were stress response, neuroinflammation, delirium, opioid-free anesthesia, peripheral nerve block, and complications. Conclusion: Current research trends and directions are focused on sedation, delirium, and opioid-free anesthesia, as evidenced by our results. The frontier of future research is anticipated to encompass basic investigations into dexmedetomidine, including stress response and neuroinflammation, as well as clinical studies focusing on delirium, opioid-free anesthesia, peripheral nerve block, and associated complications.

A Comparison of Analgesic and Recovery Profiles of Ketamine, Lignocaine, and Dexmedetomidine (KeLiDex) Versus Fentanyl-Based Anesthesia in Laparoscopic Nephrectomies: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: In the search for opioid-free anesthesia, notable numbers of drugs, singly or in combinations, have been tested with variable results. However, most of the drugs used are not as strong as opioids. Even if some non-opioid drugs are potent enough, they cause significant untoward effects, necessitating the use of lower effective dosages of multiple drugs as a substitute. The present pilot study evaluated low-dose combinations of ketamine, lignocaine, and dexmedetomidine (KeLiDex) against fentanyl-based anesthesia for analgesia and recovery profiles in laparoscopic nephrectomies. METHODS: Twenty patients (10 in each group) randomly received KeLiDex or fentanyl infusion as an analgesic component for balanced general anesthesia. Entire patients also received paracetamol and quadratus lumborum block-2. Anesthesia depth, neuromuscular blockade, and reversal were standardized. Intraoperative hemodynamic variation, time to extubation after reversal (T-tEAR) administration, postanesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge readiness assessed using modified Aldrete score, sedations using Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, postoperative pain, and rescue analgesia consumptions were compared using different validated scales. P-value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The KeLiDex group had a significantly lower heart rate (HR) between 45-90 minutes and at the time of reversal. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) (mean ± standard deviation (SD)) differed significantly at only a 60-minute interval (KeLiDex group 80.90 ± 9.50 versus fentanyl group 92.60 ± 16.13 mmHg, p-value 0.041). The Friedman test for change in HR and MAP over time within each group was also insignificant. The mean ± SD of T-tEAR was 6.37 ± 2.13 in KeLiDex, and 8.18 ± 2.92 minutes in the fentanyl group, p-value 0.27. Sedation scores, Modified Alderette scores, pain scores, and rescue analgesic requirements were also comparable. CONCLUSION: KeLiDex could effectively control hemodynamics and pain both at rest and in movements in line with fentanyl-based anesthesia for laparoscopic nephrectomies. Further, recovery from the anesthesia, sedation, and PACU discharge readiness were similar.

Comparison of opioid-free and opioid-inclusive propofol anaesthesia for thyroid and parathyroid surgery: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting occur frequently following thyroid and parathyroid surgery and are associated with worse patient outcomes. We hypothesised that opioid-free propofol anaesthesia would reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with opioid-inclusive propofol anaesthesia in patients undergoing these procedures. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, double-blinded controlled trial in adult patients scheduled to undergo thyroid and parathyroid surgery at two medical centres in mainland China. Patients were allocated randomly (1:1, stratified by sex and trial site) to an opioid-free anaesthesia group (esketamine, lidocaine, dexmedetomidine and propofol) or an opioid-inclusive group (sufentanil and propofol). Propofol infusions were titrated to bispectral index 45-55. Patients received prophylaxis for nausea and vomiting using dexamethasone and ondansetron and multimodal analgesia with paracetamol and flurbiprofen axetil. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the first 48 h after surgery. RESULTS: We assessed 557 patients for eligibility and 394 completed this trial. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the first postoperative 48 h was lower in the opioid-free anaesthesia group (10/197, 5%) compared with opioid-inclusive group (47/197, 24%) (OR (95%CI) 0.17 (0.08-0.35), p < 0.001), yielding a number needed to treat of 5.3. Additionally, opioid-free propofol anaesthesia was associated with a reduced need for rescue anti-emetics, lower rates of hypotension and desaturation after tracheal extubation, and higher patient satisfaction. Time to tracheal extubation was prolonged slightly in the opioid-free group. The two groups had similar postoperative pain scores and 30-day outcomes. DISCUSSION: Opioid-free propofol anaesthesia reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing thyroid and parathyroid surgery. An opioid-free anaesthetic regimen can optimise anaesthetic care during thyroid and parathyroid surgery.

Opioid free analgesia after return home in ambulatory colonic surgery patients: a single-center observational study.

BACKGROUND: Because of the adverse effects of morphine and its derivatives, non-opioid analgesia procedures are proposed after outpatient surgery. Without opioids, the ability to provide quality analgesia after the patient returns home may be questioned. We examined whether an opioid-free strategy could ensure satisfactory analgesia after ambulatory laparoscopic colectomy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational single-center study (of prospective collected database) including all patients eligible for scheduled outpatient colectomy. Postoperative analgesia was provided by paracetamol and nefopam. Postoperative follow-up included pain at mobilization (assessed by a numerical rating scale, NRS), hemodynamic variables, temperature, resumption of transit and biological markers of postoperative inflammation. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with moderate to severe pain (NRS > 4) the day after surgery. RESULTS: Data from 144 patients were analyzed. The majority were men aged 59 ± 12 years with a mean BMI of 27 [25-30] kg/m2. ASA scores were 1 for 14%, 2 for 59% and 3 for 27% of patients. Forty-seven patients (33%) underwent surgery for cancer, 94 for sigmoiditis (65%) and 3 (2%) for another colonic pathology. Postoperative pain was affected by time since surgery (Q3 = 52.4,p < 0.001) and decreased significantly from day to day. The incidence of moderate to severe pain at mobilization (NRS > 4) on the first day after surgery was (0.19; 95% CI, 0.13-0.27). CONCLUSION: Non-opioid analgesia after ambulatory laparoscopic colectomy seems efficient to ensure adequate analgesia. This therapeutic strategy makes it possible to avoid the adverse effects of opioids. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered and approved by the relevant institutional review board (CERAR) reference IRB 00010254-2018 - 188). All patients gave written informed consent for analysis of their data. The anonymous database was declared to the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) (reference 221 2976 v0 of April 12, 2019).

Postoperative opioid-free analgesia in dogs undergoing tibial plateau leveling osteotomy: a feasibility study.

Objectives: This study was designed to prospectively evaluate the feasibility of an opioid-free anesthesia protocol and describe the quality of recovery and management of postoperative analgesia in dogs after a tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (TPLO). Methods: In total, 20 dogs presented for TPLO were included. After premedication with intravenous (IV) medetomidine (0.005-0.007 mg/kg) and midazolam (0.2 mg/kg), the dogs were anesthetized using ketamine (2 mg/kg) and propofol and maintained with isoflurane and ketamine CRI (0.6 mg/kg/h). Sciatic and femoral nerve blocks were performed with bupivacaine 0.5% (0.087 +/- 0.01 and 0.09 +/- 0.02 mL/kg, respectively). Meloxicam (0.2 mg/kg IV) was administered intraoperatively, after osteotomy. Fentanyl (0.002 mg/kg IV) was administered intraoperatively, as rescue analgesia in the case of sustained increase in cardiorespiratory variables. Two pain scores (French 4A-VET and Glasgow short form) were performed at conscious sternal recumbency and 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 20 h after extubation and compared to baseline using a Friedman test followed by a Nemenyi post-hoc test. The time taken for the first food intake and urination was reported. Results: Intraoperative opioid-free anesthesia was feasible in 11 dogs, whereas 9 dogs received fentanyl once during arthrotomy. No opioid postoperative rescue analgesia was required. Food intake occurred within 6 h, and all dogs were discharged after 24 h without any complication. Conclusion: Total opioid-free postoperative analgesia was achieved in all dogs, with adequate recoveries. Although opioid-free anesthesia was feasible in 55% of the population, a single dose of fentanyl was necessary in 45% of the dogs during arthrotomy.

Effect of individualized anesthesia and analgesia on postoperative pain in patients stratified for pain sensitivity: A study protocol for the PeriOPerative individualization trial randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite advancements in surgical and anesthesia techniques, acute and persistent postoperative pain are still a common challenge. Postoperative pain has direct effects on individual patient care and outcome, as well as putting strain on limited health care resources. Several prediction methods for postoperative pain have been described. One such method is the assessment of pain during peripheral venous cannulation (VCP). It is not known if different approaches to anesthesia and analgesia, depending on the evaluation of risk for postoperative pain, can improve outcome. The aim of this study is to evaluate if individualized anesthesia and analgesia can affect postoperative pain and recovery after surgery, in patients stratified by VCP. METHODS: Adult patients scheduled for laparoscopic surgery undergo pain-sensitivity stratification using VCP on the day of surgery. Patients scoring VCP ≥2.0 on the visual analogue scale (pain-sensitive) are randomized to multimodal anaesthesia and analgesia with opioids or standard of care. Patients scoring VCP ≤1.9 (pain-tolerant) are randomized to opioid-free anaesthesia or standard of care. The primary outcome is acute postoperative pain measured with numeric rating scale in the postoperative care unit. Secondary outcomes include analysis of pain after 24 h, persistent postoperative pain and quality of recovery. DISCUSSION: Individualized perioperative pain management has the potential to improve patient care. This study will examine the impact of different anesthesia and analgesia regimes, in patients with differing pain sensitivity, on postoperative pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively posted at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04751812.

Opioid-Free Anesthesia in Bariatric Surgery: Is It the One and Only? A Comprehensive Review of the Current Literature.

Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is a heterogeneous group of general anesthesia techniques in which the intraoperative use of opioids is eliminated. This strategy aims to decrease the risk of complications and improve the patient's safety and comfort. Such potential advantages are particularly beneficial for selected groups of patients, among them obese patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Opioids have been traditionally used as an element of balanced anesthesia, and replacing them requires using a combination of coanalgesics and various types of local and regional anesthesia, which also have their side effects, limitations, and potential disadvantages. Moreover, despite the growing amount of evidence, the empirical data on the superiority of OFA compared to standard anesthesia with multimodal analgesia are contradictory, and potential benefits in many studies are being questioned. Additionally, little is known about the long-term sequelae of such a strategy. Considering the above-mentioned issues, this study aims to present the potential benefits, risks, and difficulties of implementing OFA in bariatric surgery, considering the current state of knowledge and literature.

Influence of psychological factors and pain sensitivity on the efficacy of opioid-free anesthesia: A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the effects of opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) in laparoscopic gastrectomy and identify the psychological factors that could influence the efficacy of OFA. METHOD: 120 patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy were allocated to either the opioid-based anesthesia group (OA) (n = 60) or the OFA (n = 60) group. Remifentanil was administered to the OA group intraoperatively, whereas dexmedetomidine and lidocaine were administered to the OFA group. The interaction effect of the psychological factors on OFA was analyzed using the aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses. RESULTS: The opioid requirement for 24 h after surgery was lower in the OFA group than in the OA group (fentanyl equivalent dose 727 vs. 650 µg, p = 0.036). The effect of OFA was influenced by the pain catastrophizing scale (p = 0.041), temporal pain summation (p = 0.046), and pressure pain tolerance (p = 0.034). This indicates that patients with pain catastrophizing or high pain sensitivity significantly benefited from OFA, whereas patients without these characteristics did not. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that OFA with dexmedetomidine and lidocaine effectively reduced the postoperative 24-h opioid requirements following laparoscopic gastrectomy, which was modified by baseline pain catastrophizing and pain sensitivity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Yonsei University Health System Gangnam Severance Hospital (#3-2021-0295) and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05076903).

Children and the Opioid Crisis: We Can Make a Difference.

The use of opioid-sparing and opioid-free strategies in children can provide adequate analgesia while decreasing the risk of adverse events and contributing to the ongoing battle against the opioid crisis. However, every child must be evaluated individually so that a safe and efficacious perioperative pain management plan can be created. A working knowledge of the risks and benefits of opioids, nonopioid adjuncts, and regional anesthesia along with the ethical considerations for balancing stewardship and beneficent care is essential to the success of these strategies. As perioperative practitioners caring for children, we have an obligation to consider opioid-sparing and opioid-free strategies to promote overall best outcomes. We can make a difference, one child at a time.

Ultrasound-Guided Regional Anesthesia Using a Mixture of Dexamethasone, Dexmedetomidine, and 0.2% Levobupivacaine for Bilateral Breast Cancer Surgery Under a Spontaneous Breathing Opioid-Free Anesthesia: A Case Report.

Breast cancer is unfortunately the most common cancer in women, although survival rates have greatly increased in recent years. Breast surgery can be very aggressive and therefore highly painful, leading to high rates of acute postsurgical pain and chronic pain. In addition to general anesthesia (GA), ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (RA) is sometimes performed to help reduce acute postoperative pain and consumption of opioids. Although effective, the main limitation of fascial plane blocks is that they require high volumes of local anesthetics, carrying the risk of local anesthetic systemic toxicity. In this article, we present the case of a 41-year-old woman, who refused GA and was successfully operated on for bilateral breast cancer, under a spontaneous breathing opioid-free sedation and ultrasound-guided RA, based on only 0.2% levobupivacaine with the addition of dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine as adjuvants. Despite this, postoperative analgesia lasted for more than 48 hours, and the patient did not require additional analgesia or opioids.

Patients' perioperative experiences of an opioid-free versus opioid-based care pathway for laparoscopic bariatric surgery: A qualitative study.

Background: Despite recent evidence supporting the adoption of opioid-free anaesthetic and analgesic alternatives in the perioperative context, opioid-based regimens remain standard of care. There is limited knowledge about the patients' perioperative experiences of bariatric surgery, with no study yet investigating their experiences within an opioid-free care pathway. Objective: We aimed to describe similarities and differences in patients' perioperative experiences of undergoing bariatric surgery with either an opioid-free or opioid-based care pathway. Design: A qualitative interview study. Setting: A strategic sample of patients enrolled in an ongoing randomized controlled trial investigating the effects of opioid-free anaesthesia for bariatric surgery were recruited. In the randomized controlled trial, participants were randomized to either opioid-based anaesthesia or opioid-free anaesthesia, including transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation as primary postoperative pain management. Participants: Twenty patients were interviewed 3 months after surgery: 10 participants in the opioid-free group versus 10 in the opioid-based group. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between December 2020 and February 2022 and analysed with qualitative content analysis. Results: The analysis yielded four categories and 12 subcategories. In Category 1, participants shared diverse emotions before surgery, including anticipation of a healthier life, but also apprehensions and feelings of failure. In Category 2, describing liminality of general anaesthesia, there were similar descriptions of struggling to remember the anaesthesia induction and struggling to surface when recovering from anaesthesia. However, some participants in the opioid-free group shared descriptions of struggling to keep control, describing accentuated memories of the anaesthesia induction. Category 3, managing your pain, showed similar experiences and strategies but different narrations of pain management, with the opioid-free group stating that transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation works but not when it really hurts, and the opioid-based group describing confidence in but awareness of opioids. Throughout the overall perioperative time period, participants acknowledged Category 4, a patient-professional presence, stating that preparations boost the feeling of confidence before surgery and that they felt confidence in a vulnerable situation although vulnerability challenges communication. Conclusions: We highlighted the overall similarities in perioperative experiences of patients undergoing bariatric surgery. However, the differences in experiences during opioid-free anaesthesia induction need to be addressed in further implementation and research studies investigating strategies to reduce the sense of loss of control. More research is needed to facilitate the implementation of opioid-free treatment strategies into clinical practice and improve the patient care experience.

Comparison of the effects of opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) and opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) on postoperative analgesia and intraoperative hemodynamics in patients undergoing spine surgery: A prospective randomized double-blind controlled trial.

Background: Opioids form the basis of perioperative pain management but are associated with multiple side effects. In opioid-free anesthesia (OFA), several non-opioid drugs or neuraxial/regional blocks are used as substitutes for opioids. Ketamine, a N-methyl-d-aspartate antagonist, provides intense analgesia. However, there is a shortage of literature on the effects of ketamine-based OFA on hemodynamics (HD) and postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing thoracolumbar spine surgery. Materials and Methods: This prospective randomized controlled trial included 60 adult patients. The patients in Group OFA (n = 30) received OFA with ketamine and ketofol (1:5) infusion, and those in Group OBA (n = 30) received opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) with fentanyl and propofol infusion. The postoperative pain-free period, pain scores, rescue analgesia, intraoperative HDs, and postoperative complications were assessed. Results: The mean pain-free period in Group OFA (9.86 ± 1.43 hr) was significantly higher than that in Group OBA (6.93 ± 1.93 hr) (P = 0.002). During the postoperative 48 hours, the total requirement of fentanyl was considerably lower in Group OFA (P < 0.05). There was a significantly higher incidence of hypertension in Group OFA (46%) and hypotension (43%) in Group OBA (43%), respectively. Postoperative nausea vomiting (PONV) was more common in Group OBA at the 2nd and 6th hr (P = 0.046 and P = 0.038). Conclusion: OFA with ketamine and ketofol provided adequate postoperative analgesia with a lower incidence of PONV after spine surgery. However, hypertension in the ketamine group and hypotension in the propofol group required fine titration of the infusion rate of drugs during the intraoperative period.

A comparative analysis of opioid-free and opioid-sparing anaesthesia techniques for laparoscopic ovariectomy in healthy dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative analgesic effects of an opioid-free (OFA) and an opioid-sparing (OSA) anaesthetic protocol in dogs undergoing laparoscopic ovariectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial. ANIMALS: A group of 28 client-owned dogs. METHODS: Dogs were allocated to one of two groups. The OFA group was administered intramuscular (IM) dexmedetomidine 5 µg kg-1 and ketamine 1 mg kg-1, followed by two intraoperative constant rate infusions (CRIs) of dexmedetomidine (3 µg kg-1 hour-1) and lidocaine (1 mg kg-1 loading dose, 2 mg kg-1 hour-1). The OSA group was administered IM dexmedetomidine 5 µg kg-1, ketamine 1 mg kg-1 and methadone 0.2 mg kg-1, followed by two intraoperative saline CRIs. In both groups, anaesthesia was induced with intravenous (IV) propofol 2 mg kg-1 and diazepam 0.2 mg kg-1 and maintained with isoflurane. Rescue dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg kg-1) was administered IV if there was a 20% increase in cardiovascular variables compared with pre-stimulation values. Ketorolac (0.5 mg kg-1) was administered IV when the surgery ended. Postoperative analgesia was evaluated using the Short Form-Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale and methadone (0.2 mg kg-1) was administered IM if the pain score was ≥ 6/24. Statistical analysis included mixed analysis of variance, Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the intraoperative monitored variables between groups. The OFA group showed a significantly lower intraoperative rescue analgesia requirement (p = 0.016) and lower postoperative pain scores at 3 (p =0.001) and 6 (p < 0.001) hours. No dogs were administered rescue methadone postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although both groups achieved acceptable postoperative pain scores with no need for further intervention, the analgesic efficacy of the OFA protocol was significantly superior to that of the OSA protocol presented and was associated with a lower intraoperative rescue analgesia requirement and early postoperative pain scores.

Comparison of Opioid-Based Versus Opioid-Sparing Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Glioma Surgery.

Background In the neurosurgical population, opioids may cause respiratory depression, leading to hypercapnia, increased cerebral blood flow (CBF), and ultimately increased intracranial pressure (ICP), which can mask early signs of intracranial complications and delayed emergence. This study was designed to compare perioperative hemodynamic stability, analgesia, and recovery parameters in opioid-based (fentanyl) general anesthesia versus opioid-sparing (dexmedetomidine) general anesthesia in patients undergoing glioma surgeries. Methodology This prospective observational comparative study compared 52 patients in two groups. Twenty-six (50%) patients in group F received Inj. fentanyl IV (intravenous; bolus 2 mcg/kg 10 minutes before induction and then infusion 1 mcg/kg/hour till 30 minutes before skin closure), whereas 26 (50%) patients in group D received Inj. dexmedetomidine IV (0.5 mcg/kg infusion 10 minutes before induction and then maintenance with a 0.5 mcg/kg/hour infusion till 30 minutes before skin closure). Perioperative heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), Numerical Rating Scale for Pain (NRS) assessment and postoperative emergence time, modified Aldrete score, patient satisfaction, and surgeon satisfaction score were estimated and compared in both groups. Results The mean HR was less in group D compared to group F at following time points - 10 minutes after infusion (P = 0.006), laryngoscopy and intubation (P = 0.003), pinning of the skull (P < 0.001), one hour after dura opening (P = 0.007), two hours after dura opening (P = 0.006), five minutes after extubation (P < 0.001), and 30 minutes after extubation (P = 0.011). MAP was lower in group D compared to group F at the following time intervals: 10 minutes after infusion (P = 0.008), five minutes after extubation (P = 0.007), 30 minutes after extubation (P < 0.001), and one hour after extubation (P = 0.023). A significant decrease in emergence time in group D compared to group F (P < 0.001) was noted. NRS was lower in group D at eight hours (P = 0.005) and 12 hours (P < 0.001) post-extubation. Conclusions Dexmedetomidine can be used as an alternative to fentanyl in terms of perioperative hemodynamic stability, perioperative analgesia, smooth early recovery from anesthesia, patient satisfaction, and surgeon satisfaction.

Trial watch: dexmedetomidine in cancer therapy.

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a highly selective α2-adrenoceptor agonist that is widely used in intensive and anesthetic care for its sedative and anxiolytic properties. DEX has the capacity to alleviate inflammatory pain while limiting immunosuppressive glucocorticoid stress during major surgery, thus harboring therapeutic benefits for oncological procedures. Recently, the molecular mechanisms of DEX-mediated anticancer effects have been partially deciphered. Together with additional preclinical data, these mechanistic insights support the hypothesis that DEX-induced therapeutic benefits are mediated via the stimulation of adaptive anti-tumor immune responses. Similarly, published clinical trials including ancillary studies described an immunostimulatory role of DEX during the perioperative period of cancer surgery. The impact of DEX on long-term patient survival remains elusive. Nevertheless, DEX-mediated immunostimulation offers an interesting therapeutic option for onco-anesthesia. Our present review comprehensively summarizes data from preclinical and clinical studies as well as from ongoing trials with a distinct focus on the role of DEX in overcoming (tumor microenvironment (TME)-imposed) cancer therapy resistance. The objective of this update is to guide clinicians in their choice toward immunostimulatory onco-anesthetic agents that have the capacity to improve disease outcome.