Comparative Study of Opioid Free versus Opioid Anaesthesia in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

S. Shakya, Preeti Vaidya, B. Paudel
{"title":"Comparative Study of Opioid Free versus Opioid Anaesthesia in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy","authors":"S. Shakya, Preeti Vaidya, B. Paudel","doi":"10.3126/jngmc.v20i2.51833","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Opioids have been used as a part of balanced anaesthesia and have known side effects. Opioid Free Analgesia is an emerging technique, based on avoiding intraoperative opioids. \nAims: To compare the effectiveness of opioid-free versus opioid based anaesthesia. \nMethods: This comparative study involved 100 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anaesthesia with American Society of Anaesthesiologists I or II physical status. Out of 100 patients, 50 received Fentanyl (Group A) while another 50 (Group B) received Ketamine and Lignocaine. Parameters measured and compared were the gender, age, weight, ASA physical status, hemodynamic stability, postoperative pain intensity (VAS) and opioid requirements, as well as side effects. \nResults: Both groups were comparable with regards to age, gender, weight, American Society of Anaesthesiologists I or II physical status, mean duration of surgery. There was no significant difference between groups hemodynamics at all assessed times (p>0.05) intraoperatively. Visual Analogue Scale pain score in the first 24 hours postoperatively showed that patients in Group A, at all analyzed time points had higher Visual Analogue Scale scores than Group B, but statistically significant difference was confirmed during the first hour (p = 0.001). Seven(14%) in Group A and 5(10%) patients in Group B got intravenous tramadol only once while 5(10%) patients in Group A required twice, which was statistically significant (p=0.05). Intraoperatively, 2 patients (4%) in group A had bradycardia while none in group B, which was statistically insignificant (p=0.153). Postoperatively, nausea was more in group A than Group B i.e. 8% vs 4% (p=0.4). \nConclusion: Opioid Free anaesthesia has a better benefit over Opioid anaesthesia with regard to postoperative pain score, opioid consumption and its side effects.","PeriodicalId":166882,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nepalgunj Medical College","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nepalgunj Medical College","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3126/jngmc.v20i2.51833","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Opioids have been used as a part of balanced anaesthesia and have known side effects. Opioid Free Analgesia is an emerging technique, based on avoiding intraoperative opioids. Aims: To compare the effectiveness of opioid-free versus opioid based anaesthesia. Methods: This comparative study involved 100 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anaesthesia with American Society of Anaesthesiologists I or II physical status. Out of 100 patients, 50 received Fentanyl (Group A) while another 50 (Group B) received Ketamine and Lignocaine. Parameters measured and compared were the gender, age, weight, ASA physical status, hemodynamic stability, postoperative pain intensity (VAS) and opioid requirements, as well as side effects. Results: Both groups were comparable with regards to age, gender, weight, American Society of Anaesthesiologists I or II physical status, mean duration of surgery. There was no significant difference between groups hemodynamics at all assessed times (p>0.05) intraoperatively. Visual Analogue Scale pain score in the first 24 hours postoperatively showed that patients in Group A, at all analyzed time points had higher Visual Analogue Scale scores than Group B, but statistically significant difference was confirmed during the first hour (p = 0.001). Seven(14%) in Group A and 5(10%) patients in Group B got intravenous tramadol only once while 5(10%) patients in Group A required twice, which was statistically significant (p=0.05). Intraoperatively, 2 patients (4%) in group A had bradycardia while none in group B, which was statistically insignificant (p=0.153). Postoperatively, nausea was more in group A than Group B i.e. 8% vs 4% (p=0.4). Conclusion: Opioid Free anaesthesia has a better benefit over Opioid anaesthesia with regard to postoperative pain score, opioid consumption and its side effects.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者无阿片类药物麻醉与阿片类药物麻醉的比较研究
阿片类药物已被用作平衡麻醉的一部分,并有已知的副作用。无阿片类药物镇痛是一种新兴的技术,基于避免术中阿片类药物。目的:比较无阿片类药物麻醉与阿片类药物麻醉的有效性。方法:对100例在全麻下行选择性腹腔镜胆囊切除术的患者进行比较研究,这些患者的身体状况为美国麻醉医师学会I级或II级。100例患者中,芬太尼50例(A组),氯胺酮和利多卡因50例(B组)。测量和比较的参数包括性别、年龄、体重、ASA身体状况、血流动力学稳定性、术后疼痛强度(VAS)和阿片类药物需求以及副作用。结果:两组患者在年龄、性别、体重、美国麻醉师学会I级或II级身体状况、平均手术时间等方面具有可比性。术中血流动力学指标各组间比较无统计学差异(p>0.05)。术后24小时视觉模拟量表疼痛评分显示,A组患者在所有分析时间点的视觉模拟量表评分均高于B组,但在术后1小时内差异有统计学意义(p = 0.001)。A组7例(14%)、B组5例(10%)患者静脉注射曲马多1次,A组5例(10%)患者静脉注射曲马多2次,差异有统计学意义(p=0.05)。术中A组有2例(4%)患者出现心动过缓,B组无,差异有统计学意义(p=0.153)。术后恶心发生率A组高于B组,分别为8%和4% (p=0.4)。结论:在术后疼痛评分、阿片类药物消耗及副作用方面,无阿片类药物麻醉优于阿片类麻醉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Study of the Relationship of Lipid Profile, BMI and Blood Pressure among Non-diabetic Hypertensive Patients - A Hospital Based Study Comparative Study of Opioid Free versus Opioid Anaesthesia in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Radiopathological Correlation in Diagnosis of Adnexal Lesions: A Hospital Based Comparative Study Correlation of Mastoid Pneumatization with Middle Ear Pathology in Unilateral Squamous Type of Chronic Otitis Media Functional Outcome of Isolated Middle to Distal Third Ulnar Shaft Fracture in Adults with Square Nail Fixation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1