Noninferiority trials in acute pain research: a valid approach or a slippery slope?

The conduct and reporting of studies with a noninferiority hypothesis is challenging because of the complexity involved in their design and interpretation. However, studies with a noninferiority design have increased in popularity. A recently published trial reported on the noninferiority of lidocaine infusion to epidural analgesia in major abdominal surgeries. Apart from needing a critical appraisal, this draws attention to improve our understanding of noninferiority study framework and its unique features. Given the increasing focus on using various analgesic adjuncts and multiple approaches to fascial plane blocks to avoid more definitive and standard approaches, it is imperative that particular attention is paid to appropriate execution and reporting of noninferiority studies.

Opioid-free versus opioid-sparing anaesthesia in ambulatory total hip arthroplasty: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery pathways are essential for ambulatory surgery. They usually recommend lower intraoperative opioid use to avoid opioid-related adverse effects. This has led to opioid-sparing anaesthesia (OSA) techniques, with the extreme approach of opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) mostly with dexmedetomidine. As evidence is lacking in day-case primary total hip arthroplasty, this study was performed to assess the potential benefits in postoperative analgesia of OFA over OSA. METHODS: In this single-centre, prospective, triple blind study, we randomly allocated 80 patients undergoing day-case primary THA under general anaesthesia. Patients received a total intravenous anaesthesia with a laryngeal mask and multimodal analgesic regimen with non-opioid analgesics. The OSA group received low dose of sufentanil, and the OFA group received dexmedetomidine The primary outcome was the opioid consumption in the first 24 h in oral morphine equivalents (OME). RESULTS: There was no difference in median cumulative OME consumption at 24 h between the OSA and OFA groups (12 [0-25] mg vs 16 [0-30] mg, respectively; P=0.7). Pain scores were similar and low in both groups with comparable walking recovery time. Adverse events were sparse and equivalent in both groups except for dizziness, which was more frequent in the OSA group (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In day-case total hip arthoplasty under general anaesthesia, opioid-free anaesthesia and opioid-sparing anaesthesia both provide early recovery and effective postoperative pain relief. When compared with opioid-sparing anaesthesia, opioid-free anaesthesia does not decrease opioid consumption in the first 24 h. These findings do not suggest any significant benefit from complete intraoperative avoidance of opioids. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT0507270.

Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia Updated Consensus Statement on Perioperative Blood Glucose Management in Adult Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Ambulatory Surgery.

WHAT OTHER GUIDELINES ARE AVAILABLE ON THIS TOPIC: Since the publication of the SAMBA Consensus Statement for perioperative blood glucose management in the ambulatory setting in 2010, several recent guidelines have been issued by the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), the Endocrine Society, the Centre for Perioperative Care (CPOC), and the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) on DM care in hospitalized patients; however, none are specific to ambulatory surgery. HOW DOES THIS GUIDELINE DIFFER FROM THE PREVIOUS GUIDELINES: Previously posed clinical questions that were outdated were revised to reflect current clinical practice. Additional questions were developed relating to the perioperative management of patients with DM to include the newer therapeutic interventions.

Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane blocks for pain management after open lumbar laminectomy.

PURPOSE: Lumbar spine surgery is associated with significant postoperative pain. The benefits of erector spinae plane blocks (ESPBs) combined with multimodal analgesia has not been adequately studied. We evaluated the analgesic effects of bilateral ESPBs as a component of multimodal analgesia after open lumbar laminectomy. METHODS: Analgesic effects of preoperative, bilateral, ultrasound-guided ESPBs combined with standardized multimodal analgesia (n = 25) was compared with multimodal analgesia alone (n = 25) in patients undergoing one or two level open lumbar laminectomy. Other aspects of perioperative care were similar. The primary outcome measure was cumulative opioid consumption at 24 h. Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption, pain scores, and nausea and vomiting requiring antiemetics on arrival to the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h after surgery, as well as duration of the PACU and hospital stay. RESULTS: Opioid requirements at 24 h were significantly lower with ESPBs (31.9 ± 12.3 mg vs. 61.2 ± 29.9 mg, oral morphine equivalents). Pain scores were significantly lower with ESPBs in the PACU and through postoperative day two. Patients who received ESPBs required fewer postoperative antiemetic therapy (n = 3, 12%) compared to those without ESPBs (n = 12, 48%). Furthermore, PACU duration was significantly shorter with ESPBs (49.7 ± 9.5 vs. 79.9 ± 24.6 min). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided, bilateral ESPBs, when added to an optimal multimodal analgesia technique, reduce opioid consumption and pain scores, the need for antiemetic therapy, and the duration of stay in the PACU after one or two level open lumbar laminectomy.

PROcedure-SPECific postoperative pain management guideline for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A systematic review with recommendations for postoperative pain management.

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in women and third most common in men. Laparoscopic resection has become the standard surgical technique worldwide given its notable benefits, mainly the shorter length of stay and less postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature on postoperative pain management following laparoscopic colorectal surgery and update previous procedure-specific pain management recommendations. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain scores and opioid requirements. We also considered study quality, clinical relevance of trial design, and a comprehensive risk-benefit assessment of the analgesic intervention. We performed a literature search to identify randomised controlled studies (RCTs) published before January 2022. Seventy-two studies were included in the present analysis. Through the established PROSPECT process, we recommend basic analgesia (paracetamol for rectal surgery, and paracetamol with either a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitor for colonic surgery) and wound infiltration as first-line interventions. No consensus could be achieved either for the use of intrathecal morphine or intravenous lidocaine; no recommendation can be made for these interventions. However, intravenous lidocaine may be considered when basic analgesia cannot be provided.

Opioid-free general anesthesia: considerations, techniques, and limitations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the role of opioids during general anesthesia and examine their advantages and risks in the context of clinical practice. We define opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) as the absolute avoidance of intraoperative opioids. RECENT FINDINGS: In most minimally invasive and short-duration procedures, nonopioid analgesics, analgesic adjuvants, and local/regional analgesia can significantly spare the amount of intraoperative opioid needed. OFA should be considered in the context of tailoring to a specific patient and procedure, not as a universal approach. Strategies considered for OFA involve several adjuncts with low therapeutic range, requiring continuous infusions and resources, with potential for delayed recovery or other side effects, including increased short-term and long-term pain. No evidence indicates that OFA leads to decreased long-term opioid-related harms. SUMMARY: Complete avoidance of intraoperative opioids remains questionable, as it does not necessarily ensure avoidance of postoperative opioids. Multimodal analgesia including local/regional anesthesia may allow OFA for selected, minimally invasive surgeries, but further research is necessary in surgeries with high postoperative opioid requirements. Until there is definitive evidence regarding procedure and patient-specific combinations as well as the dose and duration of administration of adjunct agents, it is imperative to practice opioid-sparing approach in the intraoperative period.

2023 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines for Preoperative Fasting: Carbohydrate-containing Clear Liquids with or without Protein, Chewing Gum, and Pediatric Fasting Duration-A Modular Update of the 2017 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines for Preoperative Fasting.

These practice guidelines are a modular update of the "Practice guidelines for preoperative fasting and the use of pharmacologic agents to reduce the risk of pulmonary aspiration: Application to healthy patients undergoing elective procedures." The guidance focuses on topics not addressed in the previous guideline: ingestion of carbohydrate-containing clear liquids with or without protein, chewing gum, and pediatric fasting duration.

Basic analgesic use in randomised trials assessing local and regional analgesic interventions for mastectomy: a critical appraisal and clinical implications.

Regional analgesia is a core component of an optimal multimodal analgesia technique. Several advanced regional analgesic techniques have been evaluated for mastectomy; however, the optimal choice remains unclear. Many randomised clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating various local/regional analgesic techniques do not include basic analgesics (i.e. paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, cyclooxygenase-2 specific inhibitors, and dexamethasone) which precludes objective evaluation of their efficacy. The aim of this scoping review was to assess the use of basic analgesics in RCTs evaluating efficacy of local and regional analgesic techniques in patients undergoing mastectomy. PubMed was searched to identify relevant articles from January 1, 2010 to May 31, 2023. The key finding of this study is that almost 90% (n=82/92) of the RCTs evaluating local/regional analgesic techniques in patients undergoing mastectomy did not administer well accepted basic analgesics in the comparator groups. Consequently, the conclusions of the RCTs assessing local/regional analgesic techniques for mastectomy should be interpreted with caution. Also, clinical guidelines based on meta-analyses of these RCTs could be inadequate or inappropriate.

Pro-Con Debate: Are Patients With Coronary Stents Suitable for Free-Standing Ambulatory Surgery Centers?

With increasing implantation of coronary artery stents over the past 2 decades, it is inevitable that anesthesiologists practicing in the outpatient setting will need to determine whether these patients are suitable for procedures at a free-standing ambulatory surgery center (ASC). Appropriate selection of patients with coronary artery stents for a procedure in an ASC requires consideration of factors that affect the balance between the risk of stent thrombosis due to interruption of antiplatelet therapy and the thrombogenic effects of surgery, and the risk of perioperative bleeding complications that may occur if antiplatelet therapy is continued. Thus, periprocedure care of these patients presents unique challenges, particularly for extensive surgical procedures that are increasingly scheduled for free-standing ASCs, where consultation and ancillary services, as well as access to percutaneous cardiac interventions, may not be readily available. Therefore, the suitability of the ambulatory setting for this patient population remains highly controversial. In this Pro-Con commentary, we discuss the arguments for and against scheduling patients with coronary artery stents in free-standing ASCs.

Failure to Rescue and Mortality Differences After Appendectomy in a Low-Middle-Income Country and the United States.

BACKGROUND: Major disparities in complications and mortality after appendectomy between countries with different income levels have not been well characterized, as comparative studies at patient level between countries are scant. This study aimed to investigate variations in postoperative complications, mortality, and failure to rescue after appendectomy between a high-income country and a low-to-middle-income country. METHODS: Hospital discharges on adult patients who underwent appendectomy were extracted from administrative databases from Colombia and 2 states of the United States (Florida and New York). Outcomes included major postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, and failure to rescue. Univariate analyses were conducted to compare outcomes between the 2 countries. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the independent effect of country on outcomes after adjustment for patient age, sex, comorbidity index, severity of appendicitis, and appendectomy route (laparoscopic/open). RESULTS: A total of 62,338 cases from Colombia and 57,987 from the United States were included in the analysis. Patients in Colombia were significantly younger and healthier but had a higher incidence of peritonitis. Use of laparoscopy was significantly lower in Colombia (5.9% vs 89.4%; P < .0001). After adjustment for covariates, multivariable logistic regression analyses revealed that compared to the United States, Colombia had lower complication rates (2.8% vs 6.6%; odds ratio [OR], 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.44; P < .0001) but higher mortality (0.44% vs 0.08%; OR, 8.92; 95% CI, 5.69-13.98; P < .0001) and failure to rescue (13.6% vs 1.0%; OR, 17.01; 95% CI, 10.66-27.16; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite lower rates of postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality after appendectomy was higher in Colombia than in the United States. This difference may be explained by higher rates of failure to rescue in the low-to-middle-income country (ie, decreased ability of Colombian hospitals to rescue patients from complications).

Rational Multimodal Analgesia for Perioperative Pain Management.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A multimodal analgesic approach improves postoperative pain relief and reduces opioid use; however, it is not universally implemented. This review presents the evidence assessing multimodal analgesic regimens and recommends optimal analgesic combinations. RECENT FINDINGS: The evidence for best combinations of individual patients undergoing specific procedures is lacking. Nevertheless, an optimal multimodal regimen may be determined based on identifying efficacious, safe, and inexpensive analgesics interventions. Key components of an optimal multimodal analgesic regimen include the preoperative identification of patients at high risk for postoperative pain in addition to patient and caregiver education. Unless contraindicated, all patients should receive a combination of acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug or cycoxygenase-2-specific inhibitor, dexamethasone, and procedure-specific regional analgesic technique and/or surgical site local anesthetic infiltration. Opioids should be administered as rescue adjuncts. Non-pharmacological interventions are important components of an optimal multimodal analgesic technique. It is imperative to integrate multimodal analgesia regimens within a multidisciplinary enhanced recovery pathway.

Pain management after cardiac surgery via median sternotomy: A systematic review with procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Pain after cardiac surgery via median sternotomy can be difficult to treat, and if inadequately managed can lead to respiratory complications, prolonged hospital stays and chronic pain. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after cardiac surgery via median sternotomy. DESIGN: A systematic review using PROcedure-SPECific Pain Management (PROSPECT) methodology. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in the English language until November 2020 assessing postoperative pain after cardiac surgery via median sternotomy using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Databases. RESULTS: Of 319 eligible studies, 209 randomised controlled trials and three systematic reviews were included in the final analysis. Pre-operative, intra-operative and postoperative interventions that reduced postoperative pain included paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous magnesium, intravenous dexmedetomidine and parasternal block/infiltration. CONCLUSIONS: The analgesic regimen for cardiac surgery via sternotomy should include paracetamol and NSAIDs, unless contraindicated, administered intra-operatively and continued postoperatively. Intra-operative magnesium and dexmedetomidine infusions may be considered as adjuncts particularly when basic analgesics are not administered. It is not clear if combining dexmedetomidine and magnesium would provide superior pain relief compared with either drug alone. Parasternal block/surgical site infiltration is also recommended. However, no basic analgesics were used in the studies assessing these interventions. Opioids should be reserved for rescue analgesia. Other interventions, including cyclo-oxygenase-2 specific inhibitors, are not recommended because there was insufficient, inconsistent or no evidence to support their use and/or due to safety concerns.

Pain management after elective craniotomy: A systematic review with procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Pain after craniotomy can be intense and its management is often suboptimal. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after craniotomy. DESIGN: A systematic review using procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken. DATA SOURCES: Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in English from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2021 assessing pain after craniotomy using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Databases. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Each randomised controlled trial (RCT) and systematic review was critically evaluated and included only if met the PROSPECT requirements. Included studies were evaluated for clinically relevant differences in pain scores, use of nonopioid analgesics, such as paracetamol and NSAIDs, and current clinical relevance. RESULTS: Out of 126 eligible studies identified, 53 RCTs and seven systematic review or meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. Pre-operative and intra-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol, NSAIDs, intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion, regional analgesia techniques, including incision-site infiltration, scalp nerve block and acupuncture. Limited evidence was found for flupirtine, intra-operative magnesium sulphate infusion, intra-operative lidocaine infusion, infiltration adjuvants (hyaluronidase, dexamethasone and α-adrenergic agonist added to local anaesthetic solution). No evidence was found for metamizole, postoperative subcutaneous sumatriptan, pre-operative oral vitamin D, bilateral maxillary block or superficial cervical plexus block. CONCLUSIONS: The analgesic regimen for craniotomy should include paracetamol, NSAIDs, intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion and a regional analgesic technique (either incision-site infiltration or scalp nerve block), with opioids as rescue analgesics. Further RCTs are required to confirm the influence of the recommended analgesic regimen on postoperative pain relief.

Critical appraisal of randomised trials assessing regional analgesic interventions for knee arthroplasty: implications for postoperative pain guidelines development.

Guidelines are increasingly being used for clinical decision-making. Such guidelines are usually based on meta-analyses, which are generally derived from RCTs. However, their interpretations are often hindered as they do not always consider current clinical relevance. Analyses of RCTs assessing analgesic efficacy of advanced regional analgesic techniques in knee arthroplasty show that the majority of trials do not include a package of basic analgesics such as paracetamol, NSAIDs or cyclooxygenase-2 specific inhibitors, dexamethasone, and local infiltration analgesia in the comparator group. Consequently, the current approach to analyse meta-analyses of pain interventions is not optimal, and may lead to inadequate or inappropriate conclusions and clinical guidance.

Combined proximal or distal nerve blocks for postoperative analgesia after total knee arthroplasty: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many regional anaesthetic techniques have been proposed to manage pain after total knee arthroplasty, but the best approach is unclear. We compared opioid consumption in the first 48 h between two different regional anaesthesia strategies in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: In this single-centre, prospective study, we randomly allocated 90 patients to a combination of IPACK (interspace between popliteal artery and capsule of the posterior knee), triangle femoral and obturator nerve blocks (distal group), or a combination of sciatic, femoral, obturator, and lateral femoral cutaneous nerve blocks (proximal group). All patients received an opioid-sparing general anaesthesia regimen. The primary outcome was opioid consumption in the first 48 h. Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption in the first 24 h and verbal rating pain scores in the first 48 h. RESULTS: There was no difference in median cumulative oral morphine equivalent consumption at 48 h between the distal and the proximal block groups (33 [18-78] mg vs 30 [22-51] mg, respectively; P=0.29). Median oral morphine equivalent consumption at 24 h was higher in the distal group compared with the proximal group (30 [13-59] vs 15 [0-18], respectively; P<0.001). Verbal rating pain scores were lower in the proximal group compared with the distal group on arrival to the postanaesthesia care unit and at 6 and 12 h. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty under total intravenous general anaesthesia with a multimodal analgesia regimen, proximal nerve blocks resulted in improved pain scores in the first 12 h and reduced opioid consumption in the first 24 h when compared with distal nerve blocks. No difference in pain scores or opioid consumption was seen at 48 h. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04499716.

Pro-Con Debate: Are Patients With a Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Suitable to Receive Care in a Free-Standing Ambulatory Surgery Center?

Migration of surgical and other procedures that require anesthesia care from a hospital to a free-standing ambulatory surgery center (ASC) continues to grow. Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) might benefit from receiving their care in a free-standing ASC setting. However, these patients have cardiovascular comorbidities that can elevate the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. CIEDs are also complex devices and perioperative management varies between devices marketed by various manufacturers and require consultation and ancillary services, which may not be available in a free-standing ASC. Thus, perioperative care of these patients can be challenging. Therefore, the suitability of this patient population in a free-standing ASC remains highly controversial. Although applicable advisories exist, considerable discussion continues with surgeons and other proceduralists about the concerns of anesthesiologists. In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss the arguments for and against scheduling a patient with a CIED in a free-standing ASC.

Multimodal opioid-sparing pain management for emergent cesarean delivery under general anesthesia: a quality improvement project.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic approach has been shown to provide effective postoperative pain relief and reduce postoperative opioid consumption and opioid-associated adverse effects. While many studies have evaluated analgesic strategies for elective cesarean delivery, few studies have investigated analgesic approaches in emergent cesarean deliveries under general anesthesia. The primary aim of this quality improvement project is to evaluate opioid consumption with the use of a multimodal opioid-sparing pain management pathway in patients undergoing emergent cesarean delivery under general anesthesia. METHODS: Seventy-two women (age > 16 years) undergoing emergent cesarean delivery under general anesthesia before (n = 36) and after (n = 36) implementation of a multimodal opioid-sparing pain management pathway were included. All patients received a standardized general anesthetic. Prior to implementation of the pathway, postoperative pain management was primarily limited to intravenous patient-controlled opioid administration. The new multimodal pathway included scheduled acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications and ultrasound-guided classic lateral transversus abdominis plane blocks with postoperative opioids reserved only for rescue analgesia. Data obtained from electronic records included demographics, intraoperative opioid use, and pain scores and opioid consumption upon arrival to the recovery room, at 2, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h postoperatively. RESULTS: Patients receiving multimodal opioid sparing analgesia (AFTER group) had lower opioid use for 72 h, postoperatively. Only 2 of the 36 patients (5.6%) in the AFTER group required intravenous opioids through patient-controlled analgesia while 30 out of 36 patients (83.3%) in the BEFORE group required intravenous opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Multimodal opioid-sparing analgesia is associated with reduced postoperative opioid consumption after emergent cesarean delivery.

Pain management after total knee arthroplasty: PROcedure SPEcific Postoperative Pain ManagemenT recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The PROSPECT (PROcedure SPEcific Postoperative Pain ManagemenT) Working Group is a global collaboration of surgeons and anaesthesiologists formulating procedure-specific recommendations for pain management after common operations. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is associated with significant postoperative pain that is difficult to treat. Nevertheless, pain control is essential for rehabilitation and to enhance recovery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after unilateral primary TKA. DESIGN: A narrative review based on published systematic reviews, using modified PROSPECT methodology. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed in EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane Databases, between January 2014 and December 2020, for systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating analgesic interventions for pain management in patients undergoing TKA. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Each randomised controlled trial (RCT) included in the selected systematic reviews was critically evaluated and included only if met the PROSPECT requirements. Included studies were evaluated for clinically relevant differences in pain scores, use of nonopioid analgesics, such as paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and current clinical relevance. RESULTS: A total of 151 systematic reviews were analysed, 106 RCTs met PROSPECT criteria. Paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory or cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitors are recommended. This should be combined with a single shot adductor canal block and peri-articular local infiltration analgesia together with a single intra-operative dose of intravenous dexamethasone. Intrathecal morphine (100 µg) may be considered in hospitalised patients only in rare situations when both adductor canal block and local infiltration analgesia are not possible. Opioids should be reserved as rescue analgesics in the postoperative period. Analgesic interventions that could not be recommended were also identified. CONCLUSION: The present review identified an optimal analgesic regimen for unilateral primary TKA. Future studies to evaluate enhanced recovery programs and specific challenging patient groups are needed.

Sedation-analgesia techniques for nonoperating room anesthesia: an update.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There has been a substantial increase in nonoperating room anesthesia procedures over the years along with an increase in the complexity and severity of cases. These procedures pose unique challenges for anesthesia providers requiring meticulous planning and attention to detail. Advancements in the delivery of sedation and analgesia in this setting will help anesthesia providers navigate these challenges and improve patient safety and outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: There has been a renewed interest in the development of newer sedative and analgesic drugs and delivery systems that can safely provide anesthesia care in challenging situations and circumstances. SUMMARY: Delivery of anesthesia care in nonoperating room locations is associated with significant challenges. The advent of sedative and analgesic drugs that can be safely used in situations where monitoring capabilities are limited in conjunction with delivery systems, that can incorporate unique patient characteristics and ensure the safe delivery of these drugs, has the potential to improve patient safety and outcomes. Further research is needed in these areas to develop newer drugs and delivery systems.

Perioperative Opioid Administration.

Opioids form an important component of general anesthesia and perioperative analgesia. Discharge opioid prescriptions are identified as a contributor for persistent opioid use and diversion. In parallel, there is increased enthusiasm to advocate opioid-free strategies, which include a combination of known analgesics and adjuvants, many of which are in the form of continuous infusions. This article critically reviews perioperative opioid use, especially in view of opioid-sparing versus opioid-free strategies. The data indicate that opioid-free strategies, however noble in their cause, do not fully acknowledge the limitations and gaps within the existing evidence and clinical practice considerations. Moreover, they do not allow analgesic titration based on patient needs; are unclear about optimal components and their role in different surgical settings and perioperative phases; and do not serve to decrease the risk of persistent opioid use, thereby distracting us from optimizing pain and minimizing realistic long-term harms.