Rui Zhang, Yongjian Mai, Huijing Ye, Xiufen Lian, Huasheng Yang, Yanling Zhu, Xiaoliang Gan
{"title":"一项随机对照非劣效性试验,评估了全身麻醉下眼眶骨折再造术中无阿片镇痛与阿片稀释镇痛的效果。","authors":"Rui Zhang, Yongjian Mai, Huijing Ye, Xiufen Lian, Huasheng Yang, Yanling Zhu, Xiaoliang Gan","doi":"10.2147/JPR.S491994","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Opioid-minimizing strategies are making their appearance in enhanced recovery after surgery. This study is aimed to explore the potential advantages of opioid-free analgesia (OFA) compared to opioid-sparing analgesia (OSA) in patients undergoing orbital fracture reconstruction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective, single-center, randomized controlled study, we randomly recruited 122 patients undergoing orbital fracture reconstruction under general anesthesia. Patients received total intravenous anesthesia with a flexible laryngeal mask airway, and multimodal analgesia with either OSA or OFA methods. The OSA group (n = 61) received low doses of fentanyl and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and the OFA group (n = 61) received medial canthus peribulbar block (MCPB) combined with NSAIDs. The primary outcomes consisted of area-under-the-curve (AUC) of the numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score, and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) through the first 24h.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to the OSA group, the OFA group demonstrated non-inferiority in postoperative analgesia through the first 24 postoperative hours (difference of the medians, -6; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 6), but failed to meet the non-inferiority criterion in the incidence of PONV (difference ratio, 3%; 95% CI, -7% to 14%). The Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire (QoR-40) scores on postoperative day 1 was significantly higher in group OFA compared to group OSA (188 [178 to 196] vs 181 [169 to 191], respectively; <i>P</i> = 0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In orbital fracture reconstruction, both OFA and OSA strategies provide effective postoperative pain relief, but OFA using MCPB combined NSAIDs enhances the quality of early postoperative recovery.</p><p><strong>Registered: </strong>Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1900028088.</p>","PeriodicalId":16661,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566577/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial Evaluating Opioid-Free versus Opioid-Sparing Analgesia for Orbital Fracture Reconstruction Under General Anesthesia.\",\"authors\":\"Rui Zhang, Yongjian Mai, Huijing Ye, Xiufen Lian, Huasheng Yang, Yanling Zhu, Xiaoliang Gan\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/JPR.S491994\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Opioid-minimizing strategies are making their appearance in enhanced recovery after surgery. This study is aimed to explore the potential advantages of opioid-free analgesia (OFA) compared to opioid-sparing analgesia (OSA) in patients undergoing orbital fracture reconstruction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective, single-center, randomized controlled study, we randomly recruited 122 patients undergoing orbital fracture reconstruction under general anesthesia. Patients received total intravenous anesthesia with a flexible laryngeal mask airway, and multimodal analgesia with either OSA or OFA methods. The OSA group (n = 61) received low doses of fentanyl and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and the OFA group (n = 61) received medial canthus peribulbar block (MCPB) combined with NSAIDs. The primary outcomes consisted of area-under-the-curve (AUC) of the numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score, and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) through the first 24h.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to the OSA group, the OFA group demonstrated non-inferiority in postoperative analgesia through the first 24 postoperative hours (difference of the medians, -6; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 6), but failed to meet the non-inferiority criterion in the incidence of PONV (difference ratio, 3%; 95% CI, -7% to 14%). The Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire (QoR-40) scores on postoperative day 1 was significantly higher in group OFA compared to group OSA (188 [178 to 196] vs 181 [169 to 191], respectively; <i>P</i> = 0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In orbital fracture reconstruction, both OFA and OSA strategies provide effective postoperative pain relief, but OFA using MCPB combined NSAIDs enhances the quality of early postoperative recovery.</p><p><strong>Registered: </strong>Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1900028088.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16661,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pain Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566577/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pain Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S491994\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S491994","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial Evaluating Opioid-Free versus Opioid-Sparing Analgesia for Orbital Fracture Reconstruction Under General Anesthesia.
Background and objectives: Opioid-minimizing strategies are making their appearance in enhanced recovery after surgery. This study is aimed to explore the potential advantages of opioid-free analgesia (OFA) compared to opioid-sparing analgesia (OSA) in patients undergoing orbital fracture reconstruction.
Methods: In this prospective, single-center, randomized controlled study, we randomly recruited 122 patients undergoing orbital fracture reconstruction under general anesthesia. Patients received total intravenous anesthesia with a flexible laryngeal mask airway, and multimodal analgesia with either OSA or OFA methods. The OSA group (n = 61) received low doses of fentanyl and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and the OFA group (n = 61) received medial canthus peribulbar block (MCPB) combined with NSAIDs. The primary outcomes consisted of area-under-the-curve (AUC) of the numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score, and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) through the first 24h.
Results: Compared to the OSA group, the OFA group demonstrated non-inferiority in postoperative analgesia through the first 24 postoperative hours (difference of the medians, -6; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 6), but failed to meet the non-inferiority criterion in the incidence of PONV (difference ratio, 3%; 95% CI, -7% to 14%). The Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire (QoR-40) scores on postoperative day 1 was significantly higher in group OFA compared to group OSA (188 [178 to 196] vs 181 [169 to 191], respectively; P = 0.005).
Conclusion: In orbital fracture reconstruction, both OFA and OSA strategies provide effective postoperative pain relief, but OFA using MCPB combined NSAIDs enhances the quality of early postoperative recovery.
Registered: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1900028088.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Pain Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that welcomes laboratory and clinical findings in the fields of pain research and the prevention and management of pain. Original research, reviews, symposium reports, hypothesis formation and commentaries are all considered for publication. Additionally, the journal now welcomes the submission of pain-policy-related editorials and commentaries, particularly in regard to ethical, regulatory, forensic, and other legal issues in pain medicine, and to the education of pain practitioners and researchers.