No Difference in Postoperative Recovery Outcomes Between Opioid-Free and Opioid-Sparing Anesthesia Under Multimodal Analgesic Protocol for Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Propensity Score Matching Cohort Study

5Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: With growing concerns about opioid-related risks, efforts to reduce opioid use throughout the perioperative period have increased. This study aimed to compare postoperative recovery outcomes between opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) and opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA) under a multimodal analgesic protocol in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 196 patients undergoing VATS from August 2019 to December 2021. Patients received either dexmedetomidine-based OFA or remifentanil-based OSA. Postoperative recovery was assessed using the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score, opioid consumption, and pain intensity. Additionally, opioid-related complications and intraoperative hemodynamic changes were evaluated. Results: Both groups showed similar QoR-15 scores 24 h postoperatively (124.2 ± 7.0 vs. 123.0 ± 6.9, p = 0.227). Opioid consumption and pain intensity were comparable, and the incidence of opioid-related adverse events did not significantly differ between the groups. Intraoperative hypotension and bradycardia were more frequent in the OFA group, but the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: The study concluded that both OFA and OSA, when used under a multimodal analgesic protocol, provided effective postoperative recovery in patients undergoing VATS with no significant differences in outcomes.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kim, M., Huh, J., Choi, H., & Hwang, W. (2024). No Difference in Postoperative Recovery Outcomes Between Opioid-Free and Opioid-Sparing Anesthesia Under Multimodal Analgesic Protocol for Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Propensity Score Matching Cohort Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 13(21). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13216581

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free