BMC anesthesiology · 2022
The efficacy and safety of an adapted opioid-free anesthesia regimen versus conventional general anesthesia in gynecological surgery for low-resource settings: a randomized pilot study.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tochie Joel Noutakdie, Bengono Bengono Roddy Stephan, Metogo Junette Mbengono, Ndikontar Raymond, Ngouatna Serges, Ntock Ferdinand Ndom, Minkande Jacqueline Ze
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: There is scarce data on the safety and efficacy of opioid-free anesthesia (OFA), in resource-limited settings due to the non-availability of dexmedetomidine, the reference OFA agent. We aimed to demonstrate the feasibility, efficacy and safety of a practical OFA protocol not containing dexmedetomidine, adapted for low-resource environments in very painful surgeries like gynecological surgery.
METHODS: We conducted a randomized pilot study on ASA I and II women undergoing elective gynecological surgery at a tertiary care hospital in Cameroon. Patients were matched in a ratio of 1:1 into an OFA and a conventional general anesthesia (CGA) group. The OFA protocol entailed the intravenous (IV) magnesium sulfate, lidocaine, ketamine, dexamethasone, propofol, and rocuronium, followed by isoflurane and a continuous infusion of a calibrated mixture of magnesium sulfate, ketamine and clonidine. The CGA protocol was IV dexamethasone, diazepam, fentanyl, propofol, and rocuronium, followed by isoflurane and reinjections of fentanyl propofol and a continuous infusion of normal saline as placebo. The primary endpoints were the success rate of OFA, isoflurane consumption and intraoperative anesthetic complications. The secondary endpoints were postoperative pain intensity, postoperative complications, patient satisfaction assessed using the QoR-40 questionnaire and the financial cost of anesthesia.
RESULTS: We enrolled a total of 36 women undergoing gynecological surgery; 18 in the OFA group and 18 in the CGA group. The success rate of OFA was 100% with significant lesser consumption of isoflurane in the OFA group, no significant intraoperative complication and better intraoperative hemodynamic stability in the OFA group. Postoperatively, compared to the CGA group, the OFA group had statistically significantly less pain during the first 24 h, no morphine consumption for pain relief, had less hypoxemia during the first six hours, less paralytic ileus, less nausea and vomiting, no pruritus and better satisfaction. The mean financial cost of this adapted OFA protocol was statistically significant lesser than that of CGA.
CONCLUSION: This OFA regimen without dexmedetomidine for a low-resource setting has a promising success rate with few perioperative complications including mild intraoperative hemodynamic changes, decrease postoperative complications, pain, and opioid consumption in patients undergoing elective gynecology surgery.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov on 03/02/2021 under the registration number NCT04737473.
METHODS: We conducted a randomized pilot study on ASA I and II women undergoing elective gynecological surgery at a tertiary care hospital in Cameroon. Patients were matched in a ratio of 1:1 into an OFA and a conventional general anesthesia (CGA) group. The OFA protocol entailed the intravenous (IV) magnesium sulfate, lidocaine, ketamine, dexamethasone, propofol, and rocuronium, followed by isoflurane and a continuous infusion of a calibrated mixture of magnesium sulfate, ketamine and clonidine. The CGA protocol was IV dexamethasone, diazepam, fentanyl, propofol, and rocuronium, followed by isoflurane and reinjections of fentanyl propofol and a continuous infusion of normal saline as placebo. The primary endpoints were the success rate of OFA, isoflurane consumption and intraoperative anesthetic complications. The secondary endpoints were postoperative pain intensity, postoperative complications, patient satisfaction assessed using the QoR-40 questionnaire and the financial cost of anesthesia.
RESULTS: We enrolled a total of 36 women undergoing gynecological surgery; 18 in the OFA group and 18 in the CGA group. The success rate of OFA was 100% with significant lesser consumption of isoflurane in the OFA group, no significant intraoperative complication and better intraoperative hemodynamic stability in the OFA group. Postoperatively, compared to the CGA group, the OFA group had statistically significantly less pain during the first 24 h, no morphine consumption for pain relief, had less hypoxemia during the first six hours, less paralytic ileus, less nausea and vomiting, no pruritus and better satisfaction. The mean financial cost of this adapted OFA protocol was statistically significant lesser than that of CGA.
CONCLUSION: This OFA regimen without dexmedetomidine for a low-resource setting has a promising success rate with few perioperative complications including mild intraoperative hemodynamic changes, decrease postoperative complications, pain, and opioid consumption in patients undergoing elective gynecology surgery.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov on 03/02/2021 under the registration number NCT04737473.