Sevoflurane versus propofol anesthesia in patients undergoing lumbar spondylodesis: a randomized trial

Perioperative Care of Patients Undergoing Major Complex Spinal Instrumentation Surgery: Clinical Practice Guidelines From the Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care

Evidence-based standardization of the perioperative management of patients undergoing complex spine surgery can improve outcomes such as enhanced patient satisfaction, reduced intensive care and hospital length of stay, and reduced costs. The Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SNACC) tasked an expert group to review existing evidence and generate recommendations for the perioperative management of patients undergoing complex spine surgery, defined as surgery on 2 or more thoracic and/or lumbar spine levels. Institutional clinical management protocols can be constructed based on the elements included in these clinical practice guidelines, and the evidence presented.

Consensus statement for perioperative care in lumbar spinal fusion: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) evidence-based protocols for perioperative care have led to improvements in outcomes in numerous surgical areas, through multimodal optimization of patient pathway, reduction of complications, improved patient experience and reduction in the length of stay. ERAS represent a relatively new paradigm in spine surgery.

PURPOSE

This multidisciplinary consensus review summarizes the literature and proposes recommendations for the perioperative care of patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery with an ERAS program.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a review article.

METHODS

Under the impetus of the ERAS® society, a multidisciplinary guideline development group was constituted by bringing together international experts involved in the practice of ERAS and spine surgery. This group identified 22 ERAS items for lumbar fusion. A systematic search in the English language was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and cohort studies were included, and the evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Consensus recommendation was reached by the group after a critical appraisal of the literature.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-six articles were included to develop the consensus statements for 22 ERAS items; one ERAS item (prehabilitation) was excluded from the final summary due to very poor quality and conflicting evidence in lumbar spinal fusion. From these remaining 21 ERAS items, 28 recommendations were included. All recommendations on ERAS protocol items are based on the best available evidence. These included nine preoperative, eleven intraoperative, and six postoperative recommendations. They span topics from preoperative patient education and nutritional evaluation, intraoperative anesthetic and surgical techniques, and postoperative multimodal analgesic strategies. The level of evidence for the use of each recommendation is presented.

CONCLUSION

Based on the best evidence available for each ERAS item within the multidisciplinary perioperative care pathways, the ERAS® Society presents this comprehensive consensus review for perioperative care in lumbar fusion.

Pathway for enhanced recovery after spinal surgery-a systematic review of evidence for use of individual components

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery in spinal surgery (ERSS) has shown promising improvements in clinical and economical outcomes. We have proposed an ERSS pathway based on available evidence. We aimed to delineate the clinical efficacy of individual pathway components in ERSS through a systematic narrative review.

METHODS

We included systematic reviews and meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled studies, and observational studies in adults and pediatric patients evaluating any one of the 22 pre-defined components. Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, morbidity outcomes (e.g., pulmonary, cardiac, renal, surgical complications), patient-reported outcomes and experiences (e.g., pain, quality of care experience), and health services outcomes (e.g., length of stay and costs). Following databases (1990 onwards) were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL). Two authors screened the citations, full-text articles, and extracted data. A narrative synthesis was provided. We constructed Evidence Profile (EP) tables for each component of the pathway, where appropriate information was available. Due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity, we did not conduct a meta-analyses. GRADE system was used to classify confidence in cumulative evidence for each component of the pathway.

RESULTS

We identified 5423 relevant studies excluding duplicates as relating to the 22 pre-defined components of enhanced recovery in spinal surgery. We included 664 studies in the systematic review. We identified specific evidence within the context of spinal surgery for 14/22 proposed components. Evidence was summarized in EP tables where suitable. We performed thematic synthesis without EP for 6/22 elements. We identified appropriate societal guidelines for the remainder of the components.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified the following components with high quality of evidence as per GRADE system: pre-emptive analgesia, peri-operative blood conservation (antifibrinolytic use), surgical site preparation and antibiotic prophylaxis. There was moderate level of evidence for implementation of prehabilitation, minimally invasive surgery, multimodal perioperative analgesia, intravenous lignocaine and ketamine use as well as early mobilization. This review allows for the first formalized evidence-based unified protocol in the field of ERSS. Further studies validating the multimodal ERSS framework are essential to guide the future evolution of care in patients undergoing spinal surgery.

Comparison of Sevoflurane and Propofol on the Incidence of Postoperative Pain and Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty With Chronic Pain Before Surgery

BACKGROUND

Propofol and sevoflurane as frequently used general anesthetics can affect postoperative pain. Our study explored whether the incidence of postoperative pain differed among patients with chronic pain undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) anesthetized with sevoflurane or propofol.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to groups receiving either sevoflurane (Group S, n = 50) or propofol (Group P, n = 47) for anesthesia maintenance during TKA. The incidences of postoperative pain and quality of life (QoL) were measured using the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) scale at 1, 3, and 7 days post-operation (DPO), and 1 and 3 months post-operation (MPO).

RESULTS

At 3 DPO, fewer patients reported moderate pain (P = 0.001) and more patients reported no pain (P = 0.003) in Group S than that in Group P. At 3 MPO, more patients reported no pain (P = 0.04) and fewer patients reported moderate pain (P = 0.04) in Group S than in Group P. No significant differences were found in the incidence of postoperative pain between the 2 groups of patients at the other time points. The EQ-5D scores were higher in Group S than in Group P (P = 0.022), and the difference was 0.15 at most, which was not optimal. The EQ-5D clinical results might be not very significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Sevoflurane anesthesia may have potential advantages in reducing postoperative pain in patients undergoing TKA with a preoperative VAS score > 4.

Intravenous versus inhalational maintenance of anaesthesia for postoperative cognitive outcomes in elderly people undergoing non-cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

The use of anaesthetics in the elderly surgical population (more than 60 years of age) is increasing. Postoperative delirium, an acute condition characterized by reduced awareness of the environment and a disturbance in attention, typically occurs between 24 and 72 hours after surgery and can affect up to 60% of elderly surgical patients. Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a new-onset of cognitive impairment which may persist for weeks or months after surgery.Traditionally, surgical anaesthesia has been maintained with inhalational agents. End-tidal concentrations require adjustment to balance the risks of accidental awareness and excessive dosing in elderly people. As an alternative, propofol-based total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) offers a more rapid recovery and reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting. Using TIVA with a target controlled infusion (TCI) allows plasma and effect-site concentrations to be calculated using an algorithm based on age, gender, weight and height of the patient.TIVA is a viable alternative to inhalational maintenance agents for surgical anaesthesia in elderly people. However, in terms of postoperative cognitive outcomes, the optimal technique is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare maintenance of general anaesthesia for elderly people undergoing non-cardiac surgery using propofol-based TIVA or inhalational anaesthesia on postoperative cognitive function, mortality, risk of hypotension, length of stay in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU), and hospital stay.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2017), Embase (1974 to November 2017), PsycINFO (1887 to November 2017). We searched clinical trials registers for ongoing studies, and conducted backward and forward citation searching of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with participants over 60 years of age scheduled for non-cardiac surgery under general anaesthesia. We planned to also include quasi-randomized trials. We compared maintenance of anaesthesia with propofol-based TIVA versus inhalational maintenance of anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and synthesized findings.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 RCTs with 4507 randomized participants undergoing different types of surgery (predominantly cardiovascular, laparoscopic, abdominal, orthopaedic and ophthalmic procedures). We found no quasi-randomized trials. Four studies are awaiting classification because we had insufficient information to assess eligibility.All studies compared maintenance with propofol-based TIVA versus inhalational maintenance of anaesthesia. Six studies were multi-arm and included additional TIVA groups, additional inhalational maintenance or both. Inhalational maintenance agents included sevoflurane (19 studies), isoflurane (eight studies), and desflurane (three studies), and was not specified in one study (reported as an abstract). Some studies also reported use of epidural analgesia/anaesthesia, fentanyl and remifentanil.We found insufficient reporting of randomization methods in many studies and all studies were at high risk of performance bias because it was not feasible to blind anaesthetists to study groups. Thirteen studies described blinding of outcome assessors. Three studies had a high of risk of attrition bias, and we noted differences in the use of analgesics between groups in six studies, and differences in baseline characteristics in five studies. Few studies reported clinical trials registration, which prevented assessment of risk of selective reporting bias.We found no evidence of a difference in incidences of postoperative delirium according to type of anaesthetic maintenance agents (odds ratio (OR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 2.26; 321 participants; five studies; very low-certainty evidence); we noted during sensitivity analysis that using different time points in one study may influence direction of this result. Thirteen studies (3215 participants) reported POCD, and of these, six studies reported data that could not be pooled; we noted no difference in scores of POCD in four of these and in one study, data were at a time point incomparable to other studies. We excluded one large study from meta-analysis because study investigators had used non-standard anaesthetic management and this study was not methodologically comparable to other studies. We combined data for seven studies and found low-certainty evidence that TIVA may reduce POCD (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.87; 869 participants).We found no evidence of a difference in mortality at 30 days (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.45; 271 participants; three studies; very low-certainty evidence). Twelve studies reported intraoperative hypotension. We did not perform meta-analysis for 11 studies for this outcome. We noted visual inconsistencies in these data, which may be explained by possible variation in clinical management and medication used to manage hypotension in each study (downgraded to low-certainty evidence); one study reported data in a format that could not be combined and we noted little or no difference between groups in intraoperative hypotension for this study. Eight studies reported length of stay in the PACU, and we did not perform meta-analysis for seven studies. We noted visual inconsistencies in these data, which may be explained by possible differences in definition of time points for this outcome (downgraded to very low-certainty evidence); data were unclearly reported in one study. We found no evidence of a difference in length of hospital stay according to type of anaesthetic maintenance agent (mean difference (MD) 0 days, 95% CI -1.32 to 1.32; 175 participants; four studies; very low-certainty evidence).We used the GRADE approach to downgrade the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Reasons for downgrading included: study limitations, because some included studies insufficiently reported randomization methods, had high attrition bias, or high risk of selective reporting bias; imprecision, because we found few studies; inconsistency, because we noted heterogeneity across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether maintenance with propofol-based TIVA or with inhalational agents affect incidences of postoperative delirium, mortality, or length of hospital stay because certainty of the evidence was very low. We found low-certainty evidence that maintenance with propofol-based TIVA may reduce POCD. We were unable to perform meta-analysis for intraoperative hypotension or length of stay in the PACU because of heterogeneity between studies. We identified 11 ongoing studies from clinical trials register searches; inclusion of these studies in future review updates may provide more certainty for the review outcomes.

Effects of Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia and Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia on Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Spinal Fusion Surgery

We compared the outcomes of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) in analgesia after spinal fusion surgery. A total of 120 patients who underwent spinal fusion surgeries between April 2013 and April 2015 at Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital were selected for this study based on defined inclusion criteria. All patients were randomly divided into 2 groups before surgery: PCEA group (n = 65) and PCIA group (n = 55). Visual analog scales (VAS) were used to evaluate the degree of pain. Besides, the active and passive activities of patients during 1- to 3-day recovery period after surgery were recorded. Verbal rating scales were used to measure pain levels after surgery and after surgery. Adverse effects of PCEA and PCIA were monitored, which included nausea, vomiting, pruritus, drowsiness, respiratory depression, and headache. Our results showed no statistically significant differences between PCEA and PCIA in sex ratio, age, height, weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists level, surgery time, number of fusion section, surgery methods, and duration of anesthesia (all P > 0.05). The PCEA group was associated with significantly lower VAS scores, compared with the PCIA group, at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 48-hour postsurgery (all P < 0.05) when surgery-associated pain is expected to be intense. Also, compared with the PCIA group, the PCEA group showed higher frequency of recovery activities on first and second day postsurgery (all P < 0.05). The overall patient satisfaction level of analgesia in the PCEA group was significantly higher than in the PCIA group (P < 0.05). Moreover, the incidence of hypopiesia and skin itching in the PCIA group was higher than in the PCEA group (all P < 0.05). Finally, drowsiness and headache were markedly lower in the PCIA group after surgery, compared with the PCEA group, and this difference was statistically significant (all P < 0.05). Our results provide strong evidence that PCEA exhibits significantly greater efficacy than PCIA for pain management after spinal fusion surgery, with lower VAS scores, higher frequency of recovery activities, and overall higher satisfaction level.

Does Propofol Anesthesia Lead to Less Postoperative Pain Compared With Inhalational Anesthesia?: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many studies have compared propofol-based anesthesia with inhalational anesthesia. Results from several studies have shown improved postoperative analgesia after propofol anesthesia, but other studies showed contradictory results. There are no large prospective studies that compare postoperative pain after propofol versus inhalational anesthesia. This meta-analysis was designed to focus on this question.

METHODS

A systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials that compared propofol-based anesthesia with volatile agents-based anesthesia in adults undergoing surgery was conducted. Published data were pooled for the meta-analysis with Review Manager (ie, RevMan). The main outcomes included postoperative pain intensity, opioid consumption, need for rescue analgesics, and time to first analgesia.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine clinical trials with a combined subject population of 4520 patients came within the purview of this meta-analysis. The investigated volatile agents included isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane. Compared with inhalational anesthetics, the propofol use was associated with a reduced postoperative pain intensity at rest at 30 minutes, 1 hour, and 12 hours (mean difference in pain scores, 30 minutes, -0.48 [visual analog scale, 0-10]; 99% confidence interval [CI], -1.07 to 0.12, P = 0.04) and reduced morphine-equivalent consumption 0 to 24 hours postoperatively (mean difference in morphine-equivalent consumption, -2.68 mg; 99% CI, -6.17 to 0.82; P = 0.05). Fewer patients required postoperative rescue analgesics during 0 to 24 hours after surgery under propofol anesthesia (risk ratio, 0.87; 99% CI, 0.74-1.03; P = 0.04). In addition, patients anesthetized with propofol required administration of postoperative analgesia later than those anesthetized with volatiles (mean difference in time to first analgesic administration, 6.12 minutes; 99% CI, 0.02-12.21; P = 0.01). Considering that Z statistic in RevMan 5.3 does not perform optimally in highly heterogeneous samples among groups or many combinations of groups with small sample sizes, a P value of <.01 was considered statistically significant. On the basis of this threshold, none of the aforementioned results are statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results are affected by substantial heterogeneity, which makes it difficult to predict significant differences in postoperative pain control between propofol anesthesia and inhalational anesthesia. Further large, randomized controlled trials are needed to corroborate these results and to detect differences (if any) between propofol and inhalational anesthesia on postoperative pain.

Differential Postoperative Effects of Volatile Anesthesia and Intraoperative Remifentanil Infusion in 7511 Thyroidectomy Patients: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Although remifentanil is used widely by many clinicians during general anesthesia, there are recent evidences of opioid-induced hyperalgesia as an adverse effect. This study aimed to determine if intraoperative remifentanil infusion caused increased pain during the postoperative period in patients who underwent a thyroidectomy. A total of 7511 patients aged ≥ 20 years, who underwent thyroidectomy between January 2009 and December 2013 at the Asan Medical Center were retrospectively analyzed. Enrolled patients were divided into 2 groups: group N (no intraoperative remifentanil and only volatile maintenance anesthesia) and group R (intraoperative remifentanil infusion including total intravenous anesthesia and balanced anesthesia). Following propensity score matching analysis, 2582 patients were included in each group. Pain scores based on numeric rating scales (NRS) were compared between the 2 groups at the postoperative anesthetic care unit and at the ward until 3 days postoperation. Incidences of postoperative complications, such as nausea, itching, and shivering were also compared. The estimated NRS pain score on the day of surgery was 5.08 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.97-5.19) in group N patients and 6.73 (95% CI 6.65-6.80) in group R patients (P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in NRS scores on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3 between the 2 groups. Postoperative nausea was less frequent in group R (31.4%) than in group N (53.5%) (P < 0.001). However, the incidence of itching was higher in group R (4.3%) than in group N (0.7%) (P < 0.001). Continuous infusion of remifentanil during general anesthesia can cause higher intensity of postoperative pain and more frequent itching than general anesthesia without remifentanil infusion immediately after thyroidectomy. Considering the advantages and disadvantages of continuous remifentanil infusion, volatile anesthesia without opioid may be a good choice for minor surgeries, such as thyroidectomy.

Comparison of pain relief between patient-controlled epidural analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for patients undergoing spinal fusion surgeries

INTRODUCTION

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the postoperative analgesic effects of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) for patients undergoing spinal fusion surgeries.

METHOD

Relevant articles were identified using computerized and manual search strategies. Statistical analyses were undertaken by the CMA 2.0 statistical software.

RESULTS

Nine cohort studies with a total of 436 patients undergoing spinal fusion surgeries were incorporated in the present meta-analysis. There were significant differences between the PCEA and PCIA groups in the visual analogue scale score of patients undergoing spinal fusion [standardized mean difference = 0.27, 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) = 0.070-0.470, P = 0.008]. However, no obvious difference was observed in the rate of side effects between the PCIA and PCEA groups (side effects: odds ratio = 0.957, 95 % CI = 0.536-1.708, P = 0.882).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggested that PCEA may be more effective in relieving pain than PCIA for patients undergoing spinal fusion surgeries.

Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting with a subhypnotic dose of Propofol in patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study

Background:

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after general anesthesia in patients undergoing elective lower abdominal surgery. We aimed to compare the effect of a sub hypnotic dose of Propofol in the prevention of PONV after lower abdominal surgery with that of the conventional antiemetic drug Metoclopramide.

Materials and Methods:

In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 104 patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II status, aged 18–65 years, and undergoing elective lower abdominal surgery were randomized to one of four groups (n = 26 each). The patients in the four groups were administered intravenously Propofol 20 mg (G1), Propofol 30 mg (G2), Metoclopramide 10 mg (G3), and placebo (G4), 15 min before skin closure. All episodes of PONV during the first 24 h after anesthesia were recorded by an investigator who was blinded to treatment assignment.

Results:

There were no significant differences between the treatment groups with regard to their gender, age, ASA class, duration of surgery, duration of recovery time and hospital stay, and also body mass index (BMI) (P > 0.05). The prevalence of PONV 0-6 h after anesthesia was 23.08% with Propofol 20 mg (P = 0.005), 15.38% with Propofol 30 mg (P = 0.016), 15.38% with Metoclopramide 10 mg (P = 0.016), compared to 30.77% with placebo (P = 0.005).

Conclusions:

Administration of a subhypnotic dose of Propofol (30 mg) was found to be as effective as 10 mg Metoclopramide in reducing the incidence and severity of PONV in adult patients undergoing elective lower abdominal surgeries under Isoflurane-based anesthesia in the early postoperative period.

Comparison of recovery profile for propofol and sevoflurane anesthesia in cases of open cholecystectomy

Objective:

Sevoflurane and propofol are considered to be the agents of choice in surgeries of short duration due to their better recovery profile and few post-operative complications. This study was designed to compare the early recovery profile of sevoflurane and propofol anesthesia in patients undergoing open cholecystectomy.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 60 patients of either sex with American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1 and 2 scheduled for elective cholecystectomy were prospectively randomized into two groups. Group S (30 patients) were maintained with sevoflurane anesthesia (1-2%), while in Group P (30 patients) were maintained with propofol infusion (75-125 μg/kg/min) in both the groups the anesthetic concentration/dose was so adjusted to keep hemodynamic parameter (mean arterial pressure and heart rate) within 15% of their respective baselines values.

Results:

It was observed that there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) between there early recovery profile that includes spontaneous eye opening (7.5 ± 1.6 min for sevoflurane group and 6.9 ± 1.7 min for propofol group), following simple verbal command (9.2 ± 2.2 min for sevoflurane group and 8.9 ± 1.9 min for propofol group) and extubation time (10.7 ± 2.3 min for sevoflurane group and 10.3 ± 2.0 min for propofol group) but there was a significant difference (P < 0.05) in incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in both groups.

Conclusion:

Propofol is as good as sevoflurane for maintenance of anesthesia in surgeries like open cholecystectomy with an added advantage of lower incidence of PONV owing to its intrinsic antiemetic properties.